digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

The Mega-Lie Called the "War on Terror": A Masterpiece of Propaganda

alternet.org — "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie" -- Joseph Goebbels, minister of propaganda in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/23/2007, -238/+34You mean if you tell a lie big enough like: Bush's war record, Iraq = oil, 9/11 = inside job, Ron Paul = God, Iraq = unwinnable, Bush = Hitler, Republicans = evil, Bush = stupid, Bush = criminal mastermind, Iran = peaceful, Bush lied = people died, etc.

    Yeah, you know what, let's go back to around 9/11. Let's see Bush give this speech to the firefighters on top of the rubble of the WTC: "There's no cause for retaliation. We shouldn't even be in the middle east, why can't we just leave those poor people alone? They never hurt anyone! We're sorry Al-Qaeda for offending you! We'll just go rebuild these towers you knocked down, and don't worry about all the dead people, you did the right thing."
    • EntropyMan, on 10/13/2007, -18/+108Vicu, you're employing another common propaganda trick: mischaracterizing your opponent's opinions to point out how silly they are. No one believes bush is a criminal mastermind, just a criminal. Relatively few people believe 9/11 was an inside job, though many believe the official story to be a coverup, falling somewhere between negligence+incompetence and intentionally turning a blind eye to intelligence so America would "wake up" to the threat. The war _was_ about oil -- just look at what we protected and neglected when we arrived. And no one I've heard says Ron Paul is God or that Bush is Hitler.

      As for your alternate history, why are you incapable of understanding that the opposite of "invade Iraq on false pretenses" is "apologize to al Qaeda and cower in a corner." What ever happened to "do the right thing?" In this case, that would have been finishing the job in Afghanistan, capturing or killing the terrorists, and leaving that country better than we found it. Right now, more people are dying from newly grown Afghan poppy seeds than a dozen 9/11s combined, the Taliban is surging, and Bin Laden is making movies. That's the crime! Get a grip.
      • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10Well then you've got nothing wrong with the War on Terror, only the War in Iraq? That's my stance. The "War on Terror" has a lot of support around the world, takes place in a lot of different places, and is undoubtedly fighting to stop terrorism [think, how much oil is in Indonesia?]. It's just the War in Iraq that's going awry.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism:_All ...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WOT_map4a.PNG
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_War_o ...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror
        • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19I was with you until you said "How much oil is in Indonesia?" The answer: lots. http://countrystudies.us/indonesia/73.htm .

          The problem with "the war on terror" is that the phrase doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like "the war on guerrilla warfare"--you can't have a war on a tactic. We should be working to eliminate the conflicts that lead to terrorist acts (and in some cases, the people who commit and encourage those acts). The solution, say, in the north of Ireland or in Palestine is not to eliminate all those who support "terror," since in doing so you will end up eliminating a good portion of the population. The solution is to find a way that people with very deeply held beliefs and claims to the land and power can live side-by-side without having to resort to violence.
        • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13I think the war on terror is largely a crock of *****. But that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who want to bomb us. It does mean that if we're going to stop them, we can't wage a war in any conventional sense.

          The only thing that works in the long-term is infiltration, and America has done a brilliant job of turning everyone who might work for us against us.
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The problem, EntropyMan, is that to infiltrate non-white groups that speak Arabic, you need to employ non-whites who speak Arabic, and we've been really bad about doing that sort of thing.
          • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9That's my point. We have plenty of Muslim-Americans, or Muslims world-wide who would have joined up with America on 9/12/01, but BushCo turns them against us every time.
      • harajukukei, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15bush != hitler, hitler was smart.
        • yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Hitler was also good looking. Lets admit it. That mustache he sported was hip. Bush is, well, he looks like a tired of man who's frowned too much.
        • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7not to mention hitler was actually voted into office democratically.
          • elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5....That's a HUGE stretch of the truth, quaxon, and you know it.
      • bonerjams2k3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Here, here!
      • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If you believe there was a cover-up due to negligence then that is basically an inside job. It's just semantics. You just can't get yourself to believe that your own government can be that bad. Really I think this is endemic to the US only since it's considered the bastion of freedom and all that good thing.

        Maybe you didn't read the part in the article where it mentioned that the Taliban offer to surrender Osama was ignored? It's not the first time his capture was offered ffs. You also do realize just how close the Bush family is to the Bin Laden's?

        You're right. What ever happened to "do the right thing" since nothing that has been done has been the right thing? Opium production went UP after the US invaded Afghanistan. Why is the Taliban surging and Osama still not caught? All this crime is happening under the watch of the US government. So you just wonder what is going on right?
    • elvisjulep, on 10/10/2007, -53/+16No, those lies don't count. Don't you know that liberals are the only ones allowed to point fingers? They never make mistakes and all the egregious lies outrageous propaganda they spread are for the greater good!
      • jambox, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Is it a lie to say that countless billions of taxpayers dollars have been spent on the Iraq war, mostly going to defense and construction companies, especially those who have strong connections to members of the Bush administration?
      • EntropyMan, on 10/13/2007, -5/+16Elvis, how do you expect to have any credibility when your statement is patently false. Find any liberal that claims they're the only one who is allowed to point fingers. Liberals have all along said that more debate, more questioning of the party line is what we need. And Democrats can't be accused of never questioning other Democrats. That's what makes them so goddamn ineffective!

        Democrats question everyone. Republicans only question Democrats. That's the problem in a nutshell.

      • 5urr3al5am, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Can you think of one Democrat who was outraged by the Clinton scandal(s)?
        • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Are you comparing a party getting upset over their president getting a blowjob and lying about it to a party showing no remorse at all for their president getting the country involved in an expensive dubious war that he's bungled at every step?
        • EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Plenty of Democrats were outraged by the scandal -- Clinton was a complete ass for blowing (sorry) one of the most successful presidencies in years on petty foibles. But they _were_ petty. As for whether Democrats called for his impeachment, of course not. The situation didn't warrant impeachment, whereas the actual modern-day crimes against the US and the constitution really do.
        • sbader, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ben Nelson
        • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2i am very far left and still very critical of clinton and most other us presidents whether they be democrat or republican. there really is no difference, the democrats are on the inside what the republicans are on the outside. but i dont critisize clinton for a ***** blowjob, i'll critisize him for ***** that actually matter such as NAFTA, GATT, destroying the environmental clean air act, letting fisherman use tuna nets that arent dolphin safe but still put the dolphin safe label on cans, etc.
        • kageki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Can you think of one republican who was outraged over the Mark Foley scandal (pedophile ring) and Gannon gate (male prostitute in the white house)?

          Did you also know a similiar thing happened during the Reagan-Bush years?

          http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_cove ...

          I agree the Clintons are dirty too, but still to make a fuss over Bill Clinton banging an intern is laughable on its own.
    • guerrero83, on 10/10/2007, -6/+76what does Al-Qaeda have to do with Iraq?
      • neodem, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16well, to most people they are in Iraq.. although they aren't.. This was another propaganda masterpiece, naming the Iraq terrorists "Al-Qaeda in Iraq".. so most people think that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq although that's just a misunderstanding of the proper name.. ie. an announcer says "Al-Qaeda in Iraq today bombed a market".. naturally you think that it was Al-Qaeda who was in Iraq when in fact they weren't.. Hard to explain but I think you all get me.. right?
        • guerrero83, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8i'm a little confused from all this questionable information that's been spread by the media, but who was behind the 9/11 attacks? are they in any way associated with anything in Iraq? if wmd's were the reason behind the Iraq invasion and we found no wmd's, shouldn't there be some serious consequences to at least the person who ordered the invasion? and shouldn't i have known for sure the answers to these questions a long time ago?
          • jambox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Well Bin Laden claimed responsibility for 9/11, although I've never really felt that the case for that was proved. You'd have to say that if someone else had done it then they'd probably have claimed it themselves, so most people are content to say that it was Al-Qaeda.

            It was nothing to do with Iraq.

            Almost all the hijackers (all except the pilots, IIRC) were Saudis, as is Bin Laden. That's probably because the Saudi Royal family are pro-US while a large proportion of the population hate them and the West. The Saudi government repress any rebels very effectively so you don't tend to hear much about them.

            WMDs - yes I agree completely. It was completely made-up.

            Add to all this that it was the US government who armed Saddam to begin with and passed up numerous opportunities to get rid of him cleanly (there were several insurrections that they could have supported and many suspect a few hundred millions of dollars would have been enough to pay Saddam to walk away).

            I've puzzled over the meaning of the Iraq war for some time now and I've come to the conclusion that it was jointly conceived by two groups - the Ideologues and the Opportunists. The Ideologues were people like John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld, and simply believe that the US should go around destroying countries they don't like. The Opportunists are people like Rice and Cheney, who simply see it as a way of diverting huge amounts of taxpayers money to their favoured industries and hang the consequences.

            Side effects of the Iraq war is that it has sharpened the desire of North Korea and Iran to acquire nukes (so the same thing won't happen to them) and that it has made it much more difficult for western-leaning governments of Muslim countries (like Pakistan) to stay in power amongst rising anti-American sentiment.
          • Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Bin Laden never claimed responsibility for 9/11. He specifically said he had nothing to do with it. Check CNN.com if you need proof
        • HollowMarkeD, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Basically Al-Qaeda has managed to gain a foothold in Iraq due to sympathy generated from the American invasion against terrorism.
        • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Al Qaeda is Iraq is what the group calls itself, and they call themselves that in order to align themselves with Al Qaeda even though they are not part of Al Qaeda.
      • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9Well as I've stated before, the only connection I can find is the "Q" and the "A" in their names, beyond that...I'm stumped.
      • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15"Al-Qaueda in Iraq" are called that because that's what they call themselves. There are groups in Iraq who ally themselves with bin Landen's global cause. Not all the violence in Iraq is attributable to this group--many of the people are fighting simply to end the US occupation, and many more are fighting for position so that they may have the upper hand when the US leaves.

        I don't think it's just renaming that's going on. That said, Al-Qaeda didn't appear to have anything to do with Iraq until we (the US) introduced an opportunity for them there. As horrible a regime as Saddam's was, we conveniently forget that it was a secular government in a region where that is rare.
        • jambox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Yes but Al-Qaeda in Iraq mainly have a presence there to claim some of the credit for the hard time the US is getting there. They don't have the money or the manpower to play much of a part. 99% of the violence in Iraq is perpetrated by local warlords, sectarian religious groups, criminal gangs and all the other arseholes that Saddam, for all his sins, kept the lid on.
          • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Not to mention the Baathists we barred from the government.
            Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable
        • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Your statement contradicts itself. Either Al Qaeda is in Iraq or Al Quaeda in Iraq is aligning itself with Al Qaeda but Al Qaeda is not involved. The only evidence that we have ever been given for Al Qaeda being in Iraq is that one of the Al Qaeda guys escaped to the Kurdish territory that Saddam had no control over. It was debunked before the war and the Kurds were our allies.
      • bonhoeffer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0They have arming, training, financing, medical care, refuge, and jihad against the U.S. to do in Iraq. That's all.
        • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2sure you didn't just make all that up?
      • sparky3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's shocking how Bush & Co. deliver *****, slanderous propaganda and the people who vote for them don't even bother to research a bit and find out the true facts. Al Qaeda and Iraq? Give me a break.
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Actually, I came up with all those on my own, by observing the actions of the administration.
    • nbhagwat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Classic strawman argument!
    • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6I think calling "Bush's war record" a lie is unfair. Bush has never claimed to have a war record--remember? He got out of it. Then, as now, he has served his time safely at home.
      • Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3You must have hated Slick Willy Clinton sending soldier's to their deaths, then.
        • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Clinton didn't start a disastrous pre-emptive war at the crossroads of a religious sectarian feud while still fighting in one of the only regions on earth that has not been able to be successfully occupied in millenia. In other words, in other words, Clinton didn't waste solciers' lives.
    • harajukukei, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8speaking to the firefighters after 9/11 would just be more rallying and fear mongering. Sure people were pissed about 9/11, but intelligence knew of the attacks beforehand, the american government likely funded it, and nothing was done to prevent it. 9/11 was the catalyst for what these neocons were trying to initiate since 92, did you even read the article you effing sheep.
    • Malarie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6You would make a good Bil Oreilly
    • 5urr3al5am, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Its just too bad 9/11 didn't happen on Clinton's watch? huh? The press would spun the entire story completely differently?
      • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is that? Because Bill Clinton would have invaded Afghanistan and then distracted the war on terror efforts to include the war for oil? We didn't see any evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks but people still believe it, so whatever, we are at war with them, fine. Clinton might have done that. However, Clinton would not have opportunistically tried to take out Iraq in order to incorporate their oil money into our economy. After all, the plan was that we would invade, then rebuild the country at their expense, with the proceeds of their oil that we would sell for them. Since the rebuilding money is going to our military contractors, our plan for Iraq was to invade, give the Vice President's company the work rebuilding, and take Iraq's money and oil from them. Clinton is not as gullible as Bush and would not have gone along with such a plan.
    • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Nice little rant. But, like most wingnuts, you completely fail to criticize Bush for not bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. No, instead you're confused and think that a link exists between Saddam and 9/11. You go about calling everyone elses patriotism into question because they question this non-existent link.
      What you should actually be doing is going for brain scans to find out why you are so easily confused by something so basic. You may be mentally ill. It's not something to be ashamed of.
    • exomni, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26Blah blah blah blah 9/11.

      Shut the ***** up.

      Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, you dumbass *****. Iraq does have a hell of a lot of oil, though.
    • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Wait, since when is it a lie that Bush is stupid?
    • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1@Vicujozobenaxod

      Thank you for your comment. Everybody knows terrorism doesn't exist, and its all George Bush and his neocon cohort.
      • onisamsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1why in god's name does it have to be black and white? Yes, there is terrorism; NO, the terrorists who attacked us were not affiliated or supported by Iraq.

        i love it when idiotic attempts at sarcasm come far closer to reality than to a joke.
    • amadeusdemarzi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4blocked the troll :)
    • monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19/11 -> Middle East -> Iraq

      You know that's like US dropped the Nuclear bomb on China instead of Japan during WW2.

      Propaganda's good for you.
    • Xondar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You just proved the articles truthfulness better than anyone else could have done.
    • MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The phrase, "Douche Bag" comes to mind all of a sudden...
  • Archos, on 10/10/2007, -7/+48What's being said in that quote is the reason why PNAC advocated multiple simultaneous wars...

    "LARGE WARS. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. This resembles the “two-war” standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts."
  • KingCook, on 10/13/2007, -17/+180When commenting
    Consider these:
    - The government is run by people who mostly defend the corporate interrests in the first place.
    - The media is just a tool for the same people and represents the views of these people
    - The corporations in US are for a large part Militaristic ( a big chunk of the economy supports on the war machine)
    - The countries that are being invaded (Iraq and soon to come Iran) have the biggest oil reserves in the world (US is the biggest Oil consumer per citizen)
    -...


    • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -31/+6corporations are groups of individuals. Stop trying to fight an invisible enemy schitzo tool.
      • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Right, corporations are just groups of concerned citizens. And so are the 30,000+ registered lobbyists in Washington. Wake up: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/
      • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18The Nazis were also groups of individuals, and we managed to fight that "invisible enemy." Really poor reasoning there, I'm afraid.
        • HUKI365, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3And you're saying that Islamic radicals are invisible enemys?
        • yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The only invisible enemies I'm aware of are ninjas.
          • ManOfVirtues, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I am not invisible nor your enemy. So Yoda, your theory is flawed.
          • sekhui, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1and to top it all off, you're not a ninja either! ta da!
        • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The Nazi's were hardly invisible
      • Alpione, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4I can't wait until a plank in a Democrat's platform is: "there shall be no business-related entity with more than 5 people. Large scale business will not be allowed in the United States. By extension, neither will a successful economy..."
        • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9That would be stupid. Try this on for size: there shall be no "artificial people" in the United States, and stock-holders shall be held jointly responsible for the debts and criminal acts of the corporations in which they have a stake. I have no problem with large corporations--particularly those that are employee-owned. I have a problem with the fact that they are provided more protection and welfare than "regular folks" and small businesses.
        • jambox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Come off it, the Democrats are as business-friendly as the Republicans.

          I personally don't think they'd be as blatant as to start a war solely for the purpose of benefiting a company which the VP sat on the board of, but then since this bunch seems to be getting away with it, maybe they'll try it next time.
    • djavulkai, on 10/10/2007, -21/+7Consider these:
      - if that is the case, why are corporations and people who run them burdened with the most taxes? (80% of the whole)?
      - the media is always calling for the downfall of corps, and they never report anything good on the war! wtf?
      - this is just stupid.
      - no, china is. regardless, protecting the oil supply is considered protecting this country. any idea what would happen if they stopped selling to us? any at all? nope, you never thought of it.

      for one second, just take yourself out of your little world and little delusions and think for yourself. take all your 'points' there and contemplate them for a moment and just think to yourself who would be benefiting from any of this? You are right to mistrust the gov, but they are the ultimate power, not corporations. LOL. You've been watching too much anime. The Gov can't abide anyone being more powerful than them; the whole PURPOSE of the gov is to consolidate power, and you just want to sit here pointing fingers at other places pretending you are some sort of knowing authority... forget it. please! you are just as clueless as you think others are.

      it was almost a waste of time to even post this...
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Corporations and the people who run them pay almost nothing in taxes.
    • uberchaoslord, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24Oh crap as soon as someone realizes Canada has more oil than either of them, we're in trouble up here....
    • spawnfree, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18http://www.grapl.com/net/scrpie.html

      who has the most oil again?
      who is in bed with the bush family?
      Where did the 9/11 hijackers come from?
      where did haliburton move their head office to?

    • pyrotix, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Although off-topic, I'd like to point out that Canadians use the most *energy* per capita in the world.
    • llbbl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Iraq has 11% of total known reserves while Iran has only 9%. Saudi Arabia has the biggest oil reserves in the world at about 24%. At current consumption levels all the Oil in Iraq would only last the world 3 years....
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Your premises are all wrong idiot. Givt is run by people who put voter interests first, and put lobbying interests second for most issues in which voters don't care.
      The media is out to make money. They don't care about the govt's agenda.
      A small number of corporations directly participate in military projects.
      No one wants war with Iran.
      • kahunaburger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They put voter's interests first in order to get elected, then once in power the voter's interests are irrelevant. And of course if they can't get voted in, they always have their electronic voting machines with no paper trail and whose source code cannot be seen.
  • dukeeeey, on 10/16/2007, -29/+72911 was the lie that enabled the whole war on terror, yet most americans won't even consider the fact the government at the very least sat on their hands and deliberately let it happen.

    • sobe86, on 10/16/2007, -22/+19Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. You see malice, I see incompetence.
      • dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -10/+42Report Says FAA Got 52 Warnings Before 9/11
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A132 ...

        There were literally hundreds of other warnings.
        http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?ti ...
        Air craft used as weapons, an attack on the wtc buildings .. etc etc.
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6The doesn't prove malice though.

          I would like to know where the hell are the perp walkers? I want to see someone go to fricken prison for 9/11. Not because of anyone purposefully allowing 9/11 but because of the negligence. Someone must be responsible for negligence at the very least.
        • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5So that's 52 warnings, out of how many? For every warning that Al-Qaeda could use planes, there were probably hundreds that Al-Qaeda would use truck bombs like their previous attempt. Hindsight is 20/20. Even if these were the only warnings the FAA received, what do you think they should have done about it? Put up a big wall around the WTC? Shoot the plane down over NYC? That'd have caused more than 2,773 deaths.
      • commernie, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3May I ask why you don't see malice? By the way, I don't think it was an "inside job", but not because they wouldn't do it (i.e., they DO have the malice), but because they couldn't (i.e., too difficult and too stupid).
      • HollowMarkeD, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I lean towards 911 being the result of incompetence, which conveniently provided a pretext to push neo-con agendas. They needed to do something to cover up backslash from 911, so invaded a country to help show the voters they were doing something. I actually think the Afghanistan war (anyone remember them) was just, but needs more funds that have been diverted to Iraq to make it a success. Iraq is just a huge mistake, so incompetent that it'll go down in history as the start of the decline of America.
    • Sidzilla, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Hindsight is 20/20. I for one remember thinking that before 9-11 I couldn't conceive of a simultaneous hijacking of four jets to hit targets in the US. All the conspiracy nuts saying the government did nothing have to remember that until 9-11 the only thing that terrorists had pulled of were singular bombings and most of those on foreign soil. The chatter that preceded 9-11 was ignored, both by the Bush admin and the Clinton admin before that. To say that the government had a hand in it, or even turned a blind eye, is disingenuous politics at it's worst. I think that people that dislike Bush should get off their butts and vote for the candidate of their choice in the next election. As it is my first question is "did you vote?" If the answer is no, then your opinion counts as much as your vote did, that is to say not at all.
      • MWeather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Clinton held weekly anti-terrorism meetings, Bush held none prior to 9/11. And from this you conclude that Clinton ignored the problem?
    • schlurp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Seems like it:
      "At the final meeting with the Taliban, on Aug. 2, 2001, State Department negotiator Christine Rocca, clarified the options: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." With the futility of negotiations apparent, "President Bush promptly informed Pakistan and India the U.S. would launch a military mission into Afghanistan before the end of October.""
    • exomni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5In about 20 years you might be taken seriously. By then nobody will give a *****. (see WWI and WWII)
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Truthers are retards who are firm believers in truthiness.
    • ButSeriouslyNow, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Yep, we can thank Clinton for not going after Bin Laden in the 90s.
      • Djchicken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We can also thank him for the surplus that Bush has managed to turn into trillions of dollars of debt in less than 8 years.
  • trippingchilly, on 10/13/2007, -12/+41I think corporate - driven war is SUPER! Even IF we haven't begun to imagine the worst in terms of the kind and magnitude of human suffering, we can always take consolation in the fact that someone, somewhere is happy with the state of the world. How awesome it is that genocide is a sponsored event! I am giddy with delight at the fact that it's probably impossible for reasonable people to ever seize upon and maintain social tranquility. Bring on the genocides. We need no species other than ourselves, and we need only enough serfs to make our lives cushy. Eat the babies.
    • foxhaze, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3I agree.
    • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Could give new meaning to the Big Brother TV show. "This Police Action brought to you by Viagra ... Viva Viagra!" (actual marketing slogan, lol)
  • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -13/+119"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
    -- George W. Bush, May 26, 2005
    • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21At least he is honest about it (without knowing)
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Repetition is how we learn things though. If something is important, it needs to be repeated. You may or may not agree with the message but if something is not repeated, we will forget it.
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I just think his brain and his mouth aren't connected, or at the very least, one is not informed of what the other is doing.
    • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24FULL QUOTE :

      Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you -- as I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to redesign the current system. If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about -- third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20 ...
      • Rezistik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5thanks for that i didnt want to have to search for it and the quote seemed to unreal..
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It still doesn't take away from the fact that he admits he repeats things over and over to try and make people believe him, and "catapult the propaganda."
        • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's almost as if he's just repeating something Karl Rove might have repeatedly told him. It doesn't matter the context. It's a revealing slip.
    • headswine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Thanks for setting the record straight before another quote gets misused. Bush is stupid enough that we don't have to stretch things to make him seem worse. :)
    • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Has the definition of propaganda been lost upon the next generation? I know what he was talking about when he said it, however my point remains. Even in that context, he says he repeats propaganda over and over again. Think back to his reasons to go to war with Iraq. How many times did he say the same thing over and over again, even though it wasn't true? Of course, it could be argued that it was true, but he has a decades long career out of playing fast and loose with "truth".
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That's exactly what I was thinking. I mean, if it's something relatively small, like Social Security, then he'll obviously do the same for the more important issues, like war. I mean, it's pretty obvious that what he said applied as a blanket statement for all of his "truths."
  • revo764, on 10/16/2007, -9/+70OMG is it finally sinking in? PNAC plan anyone, written well before 9/11 and been played out to the minutist detail today.
  • LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -56/+9uhm, what was that 9/11 thing?
    yes there is a war on terror, get a clue
    • Meccabilly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I have no idea what you mean.
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Please do something this administration hasn't done.

      Define (in absolute and non-subjective terms)
      1.) Terrorist
      2.) War on Terror
    • jimjoebobbillyb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18yes, of COURSE. and this "war on terror" is gonna be GREAT!! It'll be just like the "war on drugs". remember before the "war on drugs" started, how it was SOOOOO easy to get cheap, illegal drugs everywhere, and since the "war on drugs" started, it's now TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to get ANY drugs, ANYWHERE? for CHEAPER? it's also SO hard to find drugs!
      the "war on terra" is gonna be just like that!! now that the "war on terra" has started, THERE ARE NO MORE TERRORISTS ANYWHERE! because these competent, wise, failed businessmen are gonna do a GREAT job......this time! .....trust them, everything else they've tried worked out so well! Enron, Katrina, Gay prostitutes in the White House, WHAT could go wrong with an eternal, global, aggressive campaign of state-sponsored intimidation?
      Let's ask Hitler how that worked out for him!......oh, wait....
    • Arcesius, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7*shoots at terror*... TAKE THAT, INANIMATE CONCEPT!
    • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5So tell us, where's Osama and why hasn't he been caught?
    • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes there is a War on Terror, but we stopped fighting it in Afghanistan and decided to instead rape Iraq for oil and "rebuilding" money for our military contractors, one of which used to be run by the VP and for which the VP still has stock. In response to an article exposing propaganda, it is preferable to not engage in propaganda tactics like yours. It doesn't work against people who have information.
  • IslandDog, on 10/10/2007, -51/+14Yes, there is no islamic terrorism. Just keep repeating that to yourselves as well.

    • Meccabilly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16You do know that most of the hijackers and roughly half the foreign insugents are Saudi don't you? Perhaps the US should invade them next hey... Seems to be the logical progression.
    • HollowMarkeD, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15The solution to Islamic terrorism is not to invade countries that will make more Islamic terrorists.
    • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5There is no Christian terrorism too, just ask the abortion clinic bombers.
    • onisamsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I disagree, there is definitely islamic terrorism. It was and still is located in all those -Stan countries. Iraq however, prior to our removal of Saddam, was a no-go zone for terrorists because it was ruled by a crazy dictator who wouldn't even allow Al qaeda in his country, because it was his and he didn't want to have to compete with religious wackos.

      The war in Afgahnistan could have been won and over with had we spent even a quarter of the money and troops there that we've spent in Iraq.

      But facts are pesky things for people like you. You'd rather your comment consisted of a lame attempt at self-righteous wit, with your nose in the air, assuming people against this ***** quagmire are so dumb that they think terrorism doesnt exist. Don't try next time, just keep your mouth shut.
  • zpho, on 10/10/2007, -18/+3If we used pirates to fight our war on terror, the enemies would be so terrified that they'd immediately die.

    http://asciirates.com
  • compcaddy, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14WATCH THIS MOVIE IF YOU WANT MORE INFO ABOUT THIS TOPIC



    ...
    ...
    http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
    ...
    ...

  • trenchcoat, on 10/10/2007, -21/+11This thread comes pre-Godwinned.

    So anything that opposes the war can't possibly be propaganda then?
  • zensmile, on 10/10/2007, -18/+7Yawn. Yeah, keep saying it is a lie and it will be perceived as one.
  • jetboyterp, on 10/10/2007, -27/+12Yep...9/11, Madrid, Mumbai, were "lies". The USS Cole and our embassies in Africa getting bombed were more lies. And terrorists certainly didn't want to blow up 10 planes over the Atlantic last year....more lies.

    Now, click your heels together 3 times and close your eyes....
    • Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2and USS Liberty? check it out, Google it!
      • jetboyterp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Don't need to "google it", Rosie...What does the Liberty case have to do with Islamic terror?
        • Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3why not? Don't you want to know who attacked the USS Liberty?
    • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8and attack primarily Islamic countries at random.
      • jetboyterp, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3"at random"? Afghanistan and Iraq were hardly "random"....

        Me thinks you got it backwards....it's the terrorists who attack primarily Christian countries "at random"....When are you people gonna WAKE UP and realize there's a lot op people in the world....all over the world....who want us dead. Of course, if another attack does happen on US soil, you'll blame Bush for nt doing enough. Meanwhile, blame Bush for going to far.
        • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I didn't even mention Bush, I didn't mention Christianity either (though there you are flat out ***** wrong, or haven't you heard of Israel?)
          Additionally, if their primary focus was on the religion of the countries they attack besides Israel, whatever happened to the Vatican, or Mexico? The most publicized and largest targets of terrorism were not just Christian countries but instead nations with highly influential international policies, such as the United States.
          Additionally, if you had read the ***** article, you would have found any remaining arguments you may have had to be already refuted.
          And since you want to talk about Bush so badly, I suppose I'll play along. Bush is largely at fault for further demonizing Americans around the world, and creating an environment which nurtures and promotes violence and extremism in nations such as Iraq and Afganistan.
        • HollowMarkeD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10A lot of people want you dead...hmm....you are terrified. you live in a country where you control both your coasts and the opposite coasts with zero threat of invasion, and yet you are fearful. Statistically you are more likely to die walking down the road to a car than to a terrorist attack, and yet you are all arrogant enough to believe that just be your existence the rest of the world is envious enough to want you dead.

          Here are a few wake ups for yourself. Afganistan and Iraq were random wars if you take the stated reasons for them. The world isn't a safer place because of these wars, its a more dangerous one with the precedent set by America to ignore the UN if it dosn't help.

          Who is winning the War on Terror, you poor frightened little American?
    • furi0us1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Those were obviously real terrorist attacks. That's not the point though. The point is, the actions of this administration under the guise of the "War on Terror" have not in any way furthered the claimed goal of making us safer from terrorism. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the "War on Terror" is a sham; wool pulled over our eyes so the administration could get away with actions it wouldn't be able to justify otherwise. Those actions are listed in the article.
    • halavais, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5> 9/11, Madrid, Mumbai, were "lies"

      No, of course not. But if someone said that those were each good reasons for us to attack monkeys on Mars, that would be a lie. But not quite as big a lie as associating those bombings with our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

      If anything, this is like finding out that there is a sharp uptic in lung cancer in the US, and distributing cigarettes freely in order to make the cancer victims feel more comfortable. If someone suggested that, we'd call him stupid.

      Had Bush actually gone after al Qaeda in Afghanistan & Pakistan--where we knew they were--rather than misleading Americans into involvement in Iraq, we might have actually prevented the bombings in Madrid and Kuta.
  • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/16/2007, -10/+43I think the difference is between addressing Islamic fundamentalism seriously and soberly or using it as a propaganda tool to scare the suburbs into voting Republican.

    It goes way back - the Red Scare, McCarthyism, the Soviet Union, and now "Islamofascism" - the GOP has always been a bunch of massive pussies.
    • LeadOffMan, on 10/16/2007, -17/+4since the libtards are the ones against fighting, I would say they are the p's.
      But by all means try to emphathise with the terrorists, they'll be just as happy to decapitate you in the name of Allah
      • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." - Sun Tzu

        And Dubya picked Iraq; what a vag.
      • Arcesius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6"emphathize"... is that kinda a mix of emphasizing and empathizing? or is this just a totally new concept?

        and stop using the word libtard... it makes you look about 12 years old...
      • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Real men can resist the urge to fight against the innocent in order to aim at the guilty. Pussies start flailing wildly about hitting whatever is convenient. Unfortunately, since Saddam did not have WMDs and oil revenues are convenient, guess who the pussies are? I don't mind having a pussy but I mind my country being one.
    • CorpT, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Yeah, the Soviets never did anything to anyone, right? They never overthrew the governments in other countries to establish communist dictators there.

      Ask the Poles or the Chekzs what they think of the Soviets and if the Red Scare was real or not.

      And I'm sure you think that the great GOP leader, JFK was a pussy too, right?
      • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Hmmm...what's the last country that overthrew a government? Gee, I can't recall...

        And JFK knew what mistakes the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam were; unfortunately, he didn't live long enough to correct them.
  • thanakar, on 10/13/2007, -25/+11Burying this as op-ed propaganda
  • facewarts, on 10/16/2007, -21/+16Reminds me of the new boogie man called global warming is caused by humans ! Scare, control and then tax the masses.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11the problem is that global warmin is happening. Regardless of if it is caused by humans or not. And steps have to be taken to insure it doesnt disrupt the economy to much. Droughts and changing tempartures are bad for everyone. Finally it never hurts to pollute less.
      • Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Global warming is crap just like the war on Terry Wrist. We must always live in fear and only ever trust our big brother government clowns to save us.

        ***** YOU!
        The enemy is DOMESTIC!
        • gummih, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1No, that would be DOMESTIC warming you're thinking about.
      • mrurc, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3I think your sarcasm detector is broken.
        • Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I think your Al Gore ***** detector is malfunctioning. You see, what really warms or freezes the world is the ***** Sun. have you heard of the Ice age? The Sun is what warms or cools the planet, has done so for billions of years. The temperature is never stable on earth or any other planet for that matter because the Sun goes thru hot and cool periods. Al gore is a Dick trying to scare everyone to death and making out he is lord saviour from the Sun
        • kevinwiz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"You see, what really warms or freezes the world is the ***** Sun. "
          Correct.
          "Sun goes thru hot and cool periods."
          Oh really? Are you ***** stupid?

          You are not understanding that the blanket of greenhouse gases traps the solar energy and doesn't allow it to escape. Now to some extent this is natural. But to the degree that humans have emitted these gases, it warms the earth past normal temps.

          Also, what would Al Gore have to gain by lying anyway?
        • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"to some extent this is natural."

          Ha ha ha!!! Without the "greenhouse" effect, Earth never would have been habitable.

          The whole point of the "ice age" thing is that we could be going through some kind of warm phase. It's not that I don't care about the environment, but I think it's pretty ballsy and naive of us to try to ***** with Earth's temperature by jumping to conclusions that we're abnormally warming the Earth and that we must do something about it. That just sounds like one of those situations where science solves a problem that isn't really there but creates a new problem in the process.
  • tehowe, on 10/10/2007, -5/+45Yes. The swaggering cops tasering and truncheoning people, the surveillance camera networks, the 'free speech zones' - all for your protection, slaves. Give up your freedoms, or the terrorists are gonna getcha. /sarcasm

    New York City's Explosion in Police Repression and Surveillance a Threat to Us All
    http://www.alternet.org/rights/63990/?page=entire
    America's Police Brutality Pandemic
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts224.html

    I bet 'Bin Laden' wishes he had such powers over the American people. I guess his family will just have to settle for scooping up all the cushy military building contracts in Iraq. Oh... didn't you know they're partners with the Bushes?
  • TampaTech, on 10/10/2007, -28/+7Better yet get a clue on life. I like your references to Nazi Germany, It's pretty ironic because there is a lot of history in play on the whole Global War on Terror. The Radical Islamic Movement is based upon Nazi teachings. Get informed check this out http://www.worldunderfire.com/timeline.htm
    otherwise your points and comments are totally baseless and without merit.
    • Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11yep, you got it and don't forget Prescott Bush (the idiot's grandfather currently in the WH) financed Hitler. Look it up for yourselves, the Bush family financed Adolf, totally undisputed and public knowledge if you want to know.
      • TampaTech, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Maybe you should do a little more research before you go blowing and spewing crap.like half of the idiots on this conspiracy crap.
        RE: your Nazi collaboration controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush
        It holds very little merit at all. Some people hate Bush so bad they just want to make ***** up or blow things so out of proportion it's unbelievable. He did not start the GWOT but he is making in roads to end it. I agree the guy has made some bone headed mistakes on the war , but then again Clinton has ample opportunity to nap Bin-ladin and either could not or would not do it. At least GW has some balls which is more than I can say for a lot of you getting your panties in wad bunch here.
        • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"He did not start the GWOT but he is making in roads to end it"

          WTF are you smoking? Inroads? He still hasn't caught Osama and there are now more 'terrorists' than ever. You'd think (if you had common sense) that Osama would priority number one. Getting him would be the biggest blow and send the biggest message to all those terrorists that scare you so much.
        • mrurc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So who did start the Global War on Terror? Al Qaeda?
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I hear the Arabic version of Mein Kampf is very popular. Of course in Arabic is called My Jihad as jihad is the arabic word for struggle.
  • Nightfall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15If you want a good news story on how this all came about, you might want to view "Buying the War" by Bill Moyers. It aired on PBS and is a great story on how the administration manipulated the press, but also how the press was foolish enough to just buy into it.

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

    Without the current administration doing what they did back then, we wouldn't be in the situation today where its a propoganda piece.
  • talywackerflash, on 10/10/2007, -6/+36"No administration in memory had been more closely aligned with the oil industry. President Bush and Vice President Cheney were intimately tied to it, and so was National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. So were eight cabinet secretaries and 32 other high-level appointees"

    This is all you need to know.....

    • LucidHawk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Even if 1/10th of those people had 50% oil motive they would no doubt falsely justify in their mind other reasons because of the oil and spread those seeds throughout the admin. Just saying not all of them are secretly plotting oil, oil, oil. BUT IT IS STILL an OIL MOTIVE that drove them all to it rather they know it or not and that's what makes it even more sinister and disgusting.
  • jaymzdean, on 10/13/2007, -16/+6Those who buy the phony "war on terror" have a dirty little secret.
    They like sucking satan's *****.
    • gummih, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I need to watch the SouthPark movie again
  • protogenxl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16This country needs a new Manhattan project dedicated to the creation of viable Fusion Power Plants. Once we don't need oil we can tell the entire middle east to sit on their thumbs and rotate.
    • Cayfox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Shame the US held up the ITER project for so long with their petty objections (ostensibly because they didn't want to see it get built in France).
  • djavulkai, on 10/10/2007, -25/+7You people are so ridiculously clueless, it is maddening. So many of you just talk without reading or thinking... wow.

    Anyone want to guess what would happen if Iraq would have stopped the oil flow? Anyone? Complaining about gas prices now, well just wait. If the Saudis ever decide that they can make more money off China, then we are in for a long, cold winter, my friends.

    Take yourselves out of your comfort zones and actually research and think for a little bit. You might learn something. Barring that, go back and play with your toys and let the grownups handle the world.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8It will not be long before they are making more money of China. And that is the reason we should have been taxing gas sense the 70s like European countires. Our gas is way to cheap as it is right now. We have relied on foriegn energy for to long and it needs to stop.
  • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10You know, that Goebbels fellow, he had a bunch of good quotes:
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

    He was a horrible man, but he's got a few nice quotes.
  • commernie, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21No, it's not really a masterpiece of propaganda, since A LOT of people aren't buying it. Compare the population's feelings on this war (great rejection) to the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 (great acceptance), for instance. Clinton convincing the American population that bombing the hell out of a place for 78 days was a good thing has to be one of the greatest propagandistic achievements of all time.
    • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not to mention in the Yugoslav case it was honestly a civil war and no side was any better or worse. There were plenty of KLA terrorists raping and killing civilians too.
    • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2*****! I meant to digg you up. I suck.
  • willyjlyles, on 10/13/2007, -12/+7If this war is for oil, why is gas still expensive.

    Can't we go about a war for oil in such a way that gas gets cheaper? Please?

    Oh wait, that's right, we didn't start this war. No comment on how we've handled it since then, but I'm pretty sure that it started in New York and D.C.

    Could someone please tell Al-Qaeda that they're getting in the way of my cheap gas.
    • Meccabilly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Is this sarcastic? Please label it as such so I don't have to call you bad names.
      • willyjlyles, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0It was somewhat sarcastic.

        A war was started in New York and D.C., but not by Iraq. I don't quite agree with calling the whole "War on Terror" a lie.

        I do want cheap gas too, so if we're already over there...
        • onisamsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you want cheap gas....so if we're already over there we might as well secure it with the blood of our soldiers so that a corporation can make ridiculous profits instead of obscene profits?

          you make a good point that there is a war on terror (centered in those -stan countries), but you're callous justifications for entering iraq are a little scary.
    • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So you're one of those who still thinks Iraq is linked to 9/11? If so, educate yourself, it's called 'The Google'.
      • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Last time I checked though this is called the war on terror not the war on al-queda. Saddam was one of the world's largest funders of terrorism even if it wasn't Al-Queda directly.

        http://www.husseinandterror.com/
        • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yup, and the US sponsored the OBL at one point too.There are plenty of other state sponsored terrorist groups around the world too, maybe it's time to start bombing everyone, hell the IRA were sponsored by American citizens for a long time, better bomb them too. Your position doesn't stand up under scrutiny, it has holes large enough to drive a truck through.
        • onisamsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If it's the "War on Terror" and we should go attack any terrorist group, then why aren't we sending troops to Indonesia to fight the Tamul Tigers (can't remember their exact name) or too Columbia to fight the FARC? Hrmmm.......what makes the country of Iraq unique.....hrrrrmmmmmm.......

          It's the picking and choosing by this administration in fighting terror that proves its greedy motives.
    • LucidHawk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's expensive because the oil companies wanted to control the oil, not make it cheaper. In fact multiple oil companies have documents which explained their disdain of Iraq for keeping oil prices low.
      • solid12345, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Iraq was not profiting off oil sales (at least not legally). It was under UN embargo and was trading its oil for food. This is why I get pissed when people say Saddam was planning to switch to Euros which is why we invaded. He was pulling in neither US dollars or Euros!
  • offspring06, on 10/10/2007, -8/+31Anyone person not brainwashed can see that the "war on terror" is a sham for corporate driven war.
  • DangerStepp, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7I saw "the mega-lie" and thought this was another Ron Paul article. LOL!
  • chrazyc, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6And the fact that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions are fighter there, instead of here, means what about this so called propaganda?

    Gee, lets bash America and Bush versus giving them some credit for the distraction for terrorist losers... oh yeah, terrorists just need hugs... assholes.
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2" the distraction for terrorist losers"

      thicker than a petrified redwood. the right-winged excuses are getting pretty far into outer space at this point...
    • onisamsha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because that "distraction" has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of civilians and sent even more than that away from their home as refugees.....thus creating more and more terrorists who want to kill us all.

      ....and since i'm a decent human being i view that as a bad thing.
  • sharkbump, on 10/13/2007, -13/+7If it's not a "War on Terror", then why haven't we had any terrorism attacks since 2001? It IS a war on terrorism, and we are winning, but there are some additional dimensions....

    I think the Bush Administration made the decision to invade Iraq for three reasons:

    1) Revenge for Sadaam dissing Bush Sr.
    2) Iraq WAS the military epicenter of the Middle East...now we own the bitch...a CLEAR signal to terrorists in the region
    3) Oil, Oil, Oil (can you say 'peak oil')
    • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There have been many terrorist attacks since then on allies soil.
      "now we own the bitch...a CLEAR signal to terrorists in the region".... ummmm... how do you explain the fact that there are noe more 'terrorists' than ever before?
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1terrorism is a tactic, not an entity. what about the oklahoma city federal building? are white supremacists also being waged war upon?

      can you declair a war on murder?? how about drugs??? how about the tooth fairy while we're at it!
  • smoothdogg00, on 10/13/2007, -13/+7Digg = a propaganda machine for the liberals/democrats. Please, just leave us alone with these articles. When will you get over it? We ARE IN IRAQ. We will remain in Iraq until you nominate a female to be our president. Until then, just STFU.
    • sovereign3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hillary Clinton hasn't the guts to leave Iraq. She doesn't have the guts to tell the American public the truth about our "War on Terror."
  • sovereign3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18What amazes me is that people still consider this "news." Nothing in that article is surprising and most (if not all) of that information is publicly available. There were plans to invade Afghanistan long before 11 September. We were meeting with Taliban officials before the war and only invaded after talks about a pipeline fell through. That was even in the NY Times BEFORE 11 September.

    It's amazing that even though everyone knows about the true nature of the so-called War on Terror, no one is brave enough to tell the truth and come clean about our true intentions in the Middle East. Why is it such a dirty little secret that the only reason we ***** with these people is because they have oil? They already know it and we continue to delude ourselves.

  • muhadeeb, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4What does anyone want, a secular society or a monotheist society? As a so called "war on terror", monotheists want to take over the world by any means necessary. How would anyone respond?
    • Tracon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1They have no ability to do so. End of argument.
    • elhaf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1We have neither a secular nor monotheist society, we have a motorist society.
  • pugliese, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11It's like we are stuck in a blackhole, where intelligent coherent information is put aside as non-sense and rediculous claims get made to be reality. They control us. There is no way out of this sad reality. The Democrats, even with they're good intentions get nothing done because they can never agree. They too are equally corrupt. Every great empire falls. This could be the moment in time that set in motion America's Demise. I always read something new and it never ceases to amaze me how ***** this situation has become. Although it is in the back of my mind at all times, I can always forget. The people that can't forget are those who are living in pain and anguish. Afraid every waking moment of death, while I sit and ponder, and these evil politicians are figuring out how to gain profits off the death toll. It makes me sick. It should. The only thing that can console me is the fact that in this infinte universe we are just a speck, and nothing will ever be lost or gained, and soon the pain can end. I love the digg community, I feel like I really understand everyone else, even though I don't know anyone personally, and I hope you can understand me the same. Digg is the ***** *****.
    • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I personally don't think this will be remembered as the time of America's demise, I think the next eight years will be known as the time America woke up. But I'm an optimist at heart.
  • harajukukei, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8RESURRECT THOMAS JEFFERSON!
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Thomas Jefferson spent lavishly on the military, creating the first military academy and building the most modern naval ships of their time. He also fought an undeclared war on foreign shores against Islamic Terrorists using Marine special forces leading a proxy army. Jefferson was a neocon.
      • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That is dumb. Admiring military discipline and properly outfitting them to defend your nation is not fascism. And your characterization of the Barbary War is dishonest, it was fought to secure safe passage of American merchant ships from pirates and so that America would not be held to the tributary demands of petty tyrants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

        Please get your facts straight.
    • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Can't we clone him or something?
    • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The first thing he would do is grab a gun and start recruiting a militia for a revolution. Are you sure you want to do that?
  • furi0us1, on 10/13/2007, -4/+6The actions of this administration under the guise of the "War on Terror" have not in any way furthered the claimed goal of making us safer from terrorism. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the "War on Terror" is a sham; wool pulled over our eyes so the administration could get away with actions it wouldn't be able to justify otherwise.

    Look at what has been done since 9/11: Afghanistan (bin laden is still free), Iraq, soon to be Iran, "Patriot act", torture, surveillance on americans with no court oversight, all the while our own intelligence estimate tells us that terrorism recruitment has grown since 9/11. The only logical conclusion is that this administration used the "War on Terror" as a justification and distraction so that we wouldn't realize their true motives for what they were doing. (Incompetence is very unlikely because no one can be this inept for 6 years straight)
  • chalkboy, on 10/13/2007, -13/+7The masterpiece of propaganda is Global Warming, at least terrorist exist.
    • reedatschool, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Suuure, thats why we can almost sail to the North Poll now. I guess every glacier has to disappear before you will believe it is anything but a "global conspiracy" to make you feel bad about wasting resources and energy. Global Warming is happening and only people who bury their head in the sand would believe otherwise. Now exactly what is causing it is still up for some debate, but the consensus so far is we have something to do with it.
      • rudyghouliani, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Ok let's think really hard here....mmmm... what could be causing Global warming? Does something like the ***** hottest thing that warms this planet, the ***** Sun have anything to do with it I wonder? The Sun cools and warms up in stages has been doing it for billions of years, you have heard of the friggin ice age havent you (no humans around then) stop getting suckered into these fear mongering politicians and business people that make billions out of your fears!
    • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You forgot to mention that other great masterpiece of propaganda, 'The earth is round, not flat'.
      • republicker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No money to be made off "flat earth" unless your a fence company and could put one up around the edge of earth, so people dont fall off of course.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well if global warming caused Katrina like Al Gore says so, and there haven't been any more Katrina's then we must be winning the War on Global Warming, right?
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/13/2007, -14/+8Over 19,000 dead terrorists in Iraq? Seems like a war on terror to me.
    • jambox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Define "terrorist".
      • JJsays, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4If we have to explain it, you are not on our side.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Islamic State of Iraq, which was previously known as Mujadin Shura Council which was previously known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was previously known as Ansar al Sunnah, Which was previously known as Ansar al Islam. All of these organizations were run by Musab al Zarqawi, until be joined the 19,000.
  • Damian91, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10They truly are doing whatever they want with this "War On Terror" It's only a matter of time before they turn this crap on it's own people. Oh yea forgot, they're already spying -_-.
    • ButSeriouslyNow, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Time to put on your tinfoil hat, Damian.
      • Damian91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Heh, I'm sorry if I came off a little strong but seriously, the gov't sure is doing what ever the hell they want with this "War on Terror".
      • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He's actually dead-on. That's how these things work. Look at history! Government starts waging a war against an enemy. Suddenly, the enemy is amongst us, so the government needs to spy on us "for our own good" (and this is already happening in America). Then, the government starts deciding who are the terrorist threats and they eliminate them... including anyone that doesn't play along with their idea of a model citizen (read: brainless zombie from the working class).

        I don't understand how people can be so skeptical of the idea of their government turning on them, or even just not doing its job with the best interest of the people in mind.
  • JJsays, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7Yes the left wing has masterfully utilized Joseph Goebbels ways to divide this country and attack its president.
    • jambox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Ha yeah, it's obviously not the lovely old President's fault that the country is divided, it's those stupid people who have the gall no to AGREEE with him!

      You've completely dodged the point, which was that the War on Terror isn't really in the interests of the majority of Americans and serves the wealthy, powerful few while thousands or millions of helpless civilians are trodden into the dirt.
      • JJsays, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3we were 85% united after 911, then the left wing went to work. Had to spend millions upon millions to get Bush to 35%
      • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yeah, it's all the left wings fault. Bush hasn't done a thing wrong.

        /s

        (I think your assumption that people are as stupid as you and are so easily swayed by the evil 'left wing' needs re-examining)
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Keep repeat treason and sedition over and over again, soon people will call it free speech.
  • LymanZerga, on 10/10/2007, -17/+11"Bush lied, people died!"
    Yep. Liberals took Goebbel's lesson to heart. Just repeat it over and over and people will believe it.
    • jambox, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Well, people have definitely died.

      Has Bush lied? I think he lied about WMD, at the very least.
    • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Another brain-fart brought to you by a Bush fanboy too lazy indulge in critical thought.
  • JJsays, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Was World War II worth it?

    In the Bush vs. Putin debate on World War II, Putin had far the more difficult assignment. Defending Russia's record in the "Great Patriotic War," the Russian president declared, "Our people not only defended their homeland, they liberated 11 European countries."

    Those countries are, presumably: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Finland.

    To ascertain whether Moscow truly liberated those lands, we might survey the sons and daughters of the generation that survived liberation by a Red Army that pillaged, raped and murdered its way westward across Europe. As at Katyn Forest, that army eradicated the real heroes who fought to retain the national and Christian character of their countries.

    To Bush, these nations were not liberated. "As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said:

    For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E day marked the end of fascism, but it did not end the oppression. The agreement in Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. ... The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs in history.

    Bush told the awful truth about what really triumphed in World War II east of the Elbe. And it was not freedom. It was Stalin, the most odious tyrant of the century. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions.

    Leninism was the Black Death of the 20th Century.

    The truths bravely declared by Bush at Riga, Latvia, raise questions that too long remained hidden, buried or ignored.

    If Yalta was a betrayal of small nations as immoral as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, why do we venerate Churchill and FDR? At Yalta, this pair secretly ceded those small nations to Stalin, co-signing a cynical "Declaration on Liberated Europe" that was a monstrous lie.

    As FDR and Churchill consigned these peoples to a Stalinist hell run by a monster they alternately and affectionately called "Uncle Joe" and "Old Bear," why are they not in the history books alongside Neville Chamberlain, who sold out the Czechs at Munich by handing the Sudetenland over to Germany? At least the Sudeten Germans wanted to be with Germany. No Christian peoples of Europe ever embraced their Soviet captors or Stalinist quislings.

    Other questions arise. If Britain endured six years of war and hundreds of thousands of dead in a war she declared to defend Polish freedom, and Polish freedom was lost to communism, how can we say Britain won the war?

    If the West went to war to stop Hitler from dominating Eastern and Central Europe, and Eastern and Central Europe ended up under a tyranny even more odious, as Bush implies, did Western Civilization win the war?

    In 1938, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain refused. In 1939, Churchill wanted Britain to fight for Poland. Chamberlain agreed. At the end of the war Churchill wanted and got, Czechoslovakia and Poland were in Stalin's empire.

    How, then, can men proclaim Churchill "Man of the Century"?

    True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.

    When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?

    If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.

    If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.

    Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?

    The war Britain and France declared to defend Polish freedom ended up making Poland and all of Eastern and Central Europe safe for Stalinism. And at the festivities in Moscow, Americans and Russians were front and center, smiling – not British and French. Understandably.

    Yes, Bush has opened up quite a can of worms.
    • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1nice paper. what grade did you get on it?
    • TIMMYGOAT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Your ignorance is astounding. We didn't cede Eastern Europe to Stalin. He took it and we did not have the power to stop him. At the end of the war the Soviet Army had more soldiers and tanks than all other countries in the world combined. To think we "let" him have is way in Eastern Europe is a laugh. It was the facts on the ground that decided our policy.

      We then engaged in a 50 year cold war to stop any further Soviet expansion. Which we did and won. You might want to read up on the Berlin Airlift to see the level of commitment we made. Or think about the vast resources we expended to stop them.

      Also, you may want to note that Germany declared war on the United States. Further you might be surprised to learn that Hitler never won a single popular free election. In fact the times he did run he never even came close to a majority. He was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg. So really the Germans rejected Hitler twice and he only took power through a procedural method brought on by the Nazi party terrorizing their political opponents.

      And the war was not declared to defend Polish freedom...it was declared to stop German aggression. At that particular time it happened to be Poland. But it was clear that Germany would not stop with just Poland. Your assertion that the invasion of France and Holland was in response to Britain and France declaring war on Germany is a joke. First...Holland never declared war on Germany. You might add that we liberated Denmark, Luxembourg and Norway. None of these countries declared war on Germany. It was clear to Hitler that if he invaded Poland he would trigger this conflict. The course of events that lead up to this were slow and clear. Hitler knew it and in fact wanted it. His plans for war against France had been drawn up months before.

      Again..Britain did not go to war for the sole purpose of saving Poland. In fact it had very little to do with it. It was the final straw if you will. The real purpose was to defeat Hitler and Nazism. I doubt you have read much of Churchill's history of WW2. You might want to give it a read.
  • JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18WAIT. . .
    The WAR on TERROR. . . .was. . .A LIE?!?!?
    ZOMG!!!!
  • reedatschool, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Aggressive warfare is a crime in international courts. That must explain why we refused to join the international court system eh? Opt out of Kyoto and the International courts, but not trade! Hell no, we will profit but never take responsibility. As US citizens we are complicit in these crimes just as our leaders are if we don't stand up and put them in jail.
    • TIMMYGOAT, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No we don't join the international court because its a joke. Just like Kyoto...a worthless gesture that would cost billions yet do next to nothing since it does not require India and China to limit emissions. Leave it to the UN and you get more sad jokes like UN Human Rights Commission whose members have included Cuba, China, Zimbabwe and Lybia. The reason they love to get on these commissions is so they can block any investigation of their own well documented abuses.
      • reedatschool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would not call the international courts a joke. They are currently prosecuting warlords and rebels in Darfur and bringing them to justice. When the US refuses to join it is sending a clear message, that the most powerful country in the world will not submit to global scrutiny. Unfortunately this also has a secondary effect of blocking human rights and our ability to hold all leaders accountable for their violations regardless of what country they come from.

        Kyoto is not a joke because it puts limits where it is needed. It also gives huge incentives to countries that actively develop cleaner technologies. Your remark about China and India is true, but they are not currently polluters. When they become major players in pollution the protocol will clamp down on them just like everyone else. Once again the US undermines this effort and instead the administration calls for "voluntary" emission control. Bush tried the same thing in Texas and deregulate pollution controls by allowing companies to govern themselves. Guess what happened? Texas became the most polluted state in the nation and puts out more greenhouse gas than 16 first world countries combined.

        Sure we can continue to ignore the rest of the world and just give them the bird so to speak, but that is not how we build a spirit of cooperation. The US can't continue to be #1 unless we start cooperating instead of dominating the world. I guess we never learned to share? lol :)


  • JJsays, on 10/13/2007, -18/+2THERE ARE NO WAR CRIMES ONLY YOUR DESIRE TO HURT YOUR COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT'S PRESIDENT.

    The whole ANTI WAR movement is a big pile of *****!
    • republicker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yea thats it........................................
    • pirloui, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You should change that keyboard one day..
  • klaupacius, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20There are so many Americans in complete denial. You think this ***** is justified, why do you think almost the entire planet despises you. Not good business, my friends. What's going to stop terrorists, an iron fist or being humane? You think people are going to forget this *****? Think of your future and future generations, they will be ashamed and their lives in danger. But they will have cheap oil...
    • JJsays, on 10/10/2007, -7/+585% of planet earth lives under a communist, socialist, warlord or some other form of supreme leader or dictator. Is that the planet earth you are refereeing too?
      • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Whats the referee got to do with this?
      • ragingradish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4What are you talking about? India, with well over a billion people, is the world's largest democracy. Add North America, most of South America, Europe, etc and I think it comes to somewhat less than 85%.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3I agree. Its allright for russian, china, and North korea to treat there own people like ***** and enforce there government on people who do not want it. Then america gets into one war and the rest of the world is like america is evil come on.
      • revo764, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3How about being a bit more realistic. America lies about Iraq and invades knowing that they have no defense force and kill a million Iraqi civillians, pretty evil ***** from the USA!
    • onlynameicanget, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"But they will have cheap oil..."

      I doubt they'll even have that.
    • TIMMYGOAT, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1which part of the planet that despises us is it ....that keeps wanting to come here? In fact we have people who literally risk their lives to get here.

      Keep in mind that the vast majority of people getting killed in the War on Terrorism are being killed by..THE TERRORISTS. You might want to vent some of your anger in that direction. The ***** scum who drive car bombs into markets, or pull people off buses and execute them. Or the ones who just executed a 15 year old boy because they caught him with a dollar bill.
    • EnvEngineer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Nothing better than someone from the land that is protected by its massive southern neighbor from any possible harm complaining about our foreign policy.

      Please tell Canada to stop doing business with the US. That would get rid of about 75% of your imports and exports, of course. And the booming economy in your province caused by YOUR oil.
    • rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm not in denial... but I'll admit, there's a lot of stupid people living in America.
  • ChazHollywood, on 10/13/2007, -4/+4"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Just like man-made global warming.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Regardless of if it is man made or not, it is still happening. And we need to be prepared for the change.
    • MrFunions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sometimes I wonder if we will hit Peak Oil before Global Warming causes any harm
  • jcb1979, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Madeline Albright used the phrase "war on terror" during the Clinton Administration. The previous Admin treated it as a law enforcement task, but recognized it as a problem all the same. The "War on Terror" is nothing new. Heck, look up the Barbary pirates ("the shores of Triploi") and see how long we've been facing the "Mohammedans."
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Who knew Thomas Jefferson was a neocon.
  • InternetRules, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Seems no matter what they do most americans don't seem to care... yes they care on the Internet but that doesnt matter
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.