Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Swine Diaries II: The Propaganda Machine continues

In the face of dramatic criticism for administration policies, specifically the American - Iraq War of 2003, the attack dogs continue to mislead the public and malign its critics. The latest example was Donald Rumsfeld’s remarks, on Tuesday, about “Quitting: No Exit Strategy for Iraq” (link).

Aside from the condescending nature of his remarks, they're oddly stale and seemed to lack the luster of his previous bizarrely entertaining ramblings. Maybe he's finally given up believing what he's saying and just decided to go on autopilot, or maybe he's stolen Muskie's stash of Ibogaine. Rumsfeld's latest round of lies should be hung up for all to see.


In Lara Logan's (link) piece on the CBS Nightly News on Tuesday, she clearly contradicts Rumsfeld's remarks. As a reporter stationed with the troops, she reports on first-hand accounts of the goings on at places like Airport Road and Haifa Street are clear examples of Rumsfeld's lies and distortions. Much like his famous lies "We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.", his latest are good one's as well.


"Attacks along Baghdad's Airport Road have dropped sharply since an Iraqi police battalion assumed control of it in April. "
This lie, as Logan describes, is a good one. Airport Road is filled with US forces, doing 24x7 patrols. Both with air and ground humvee patrols. The number of US forces outweigh Iraqi police at a staggering rate.

"Baghdad's once-violent Haifa Street has become largely peaceful under an Iraqi army battalion's control. "
Lie again. According to Logan, she describes an agreement between the insurgents and the Iraqi government to allow the insurgents to stay in the city to use it as a headquarters in exchange for no bloodshed within the city limits. So the insurgents are allowed to plan in the city and attack elsewhere.

"Shiite areas of Najaf, Karbala and Sadr City, scenes of bloody encounters in 2004, have dropped from the headlines."
They've dropped from the headlines, because their too dangerous for the press to cover there.

I have to hand it to Rummy though. He's a soldier through and through (well actually he never served combat duty; but hey.. you get the idea). He doesn't quit on his President. He is loyal and stays by the President's side no matter how foolish he looks.

Maybe that's what he meant by quitting. Quitting the President is no Exit Strategy for America.

Posted by john trevisani at November 30, 2005 3:42 PM
Comments
Comment #97272

Sometimes I wonder if I should remain optimistic. But then I think of you poor fellas who have to remain negative all the time. It must be a kind of hell for you. Good new in the economy, find the flaws. Good news in Iraq, show the shortfalls. It is always easy to find fault, but it is less fun and not profitable.

Posted by: Jack at November 30, 2005 7:22 PM
Comment #97279

Jack:

You call it being negative. We call it facing reality.

You describe yourselves as optimistic. We describe you all as delusional with criminal tendencies.

Posted by: Aldous at November 30, 2005 8:26 PM
Comment #97287

Aldous

Pessimists always call themselves realists. I have heard realist predictions all my life. If I had believed them and acted on them, I would have achieved much less and been less happy while doing it.

As a math guy, you probably are aware of Pascal’s dare. It is a simple payoff chart. Pascal used it as an argument for religion. I think it can be used for optimism. Even more optimists tend to accomplish more. Pessimism is literally for losers.

Pessimism seems to be your religion. You don;t care for anyone to question it. We all know that iconclasts are not popular among the devout.

Posted by: Jack at November 30, 2005 9:31 PM
Comment #97298
But then I think of you poor fellas who have to remain negative all the time. It must be a kind of hell for you.

Actually, Jack, I think about how miserable it must be for you guys to look at what this administration has done and is doing to this country and to smile, enjoy, and encourage more of it. That must be a kind of hell.

We’re not all pessimists, Jack. Quite the opposite. We see the tremendous potential for what could be accomplished, yet are disappointed again and again by the incompetence and dishonesty of a disfunctional adminstration.

Like I said in another thread, life is good - but Bush still sucks.

Posted by: Burt at November 30, 2005 11:15 PM
Comment #97302

Dear Mr. Off,

If your purpose is to annoy, you have succeeded. Why don’t you crawl back into the Fox hole you came from? Jerks that would act as apologists for liars like Rumsfeld belong on Fox News, not on this Blog.

Thank God for our free press and reporters with the courage to tell the truth about Iraq!

Posted by: DemYankee at November 30, 2005 11:51 PM
Comment #97377

Jack:
So you feel by exposing the untruths, i’m being pessimistic (and i suppose: not supporting our troops as well); okay. i can accept that criticism.

Do you believe in accountability? Do you believe that if someone tells you something that is a lie that you should hold them accountable for their misstatements? Where’s the bar now? Do we, as a nation, excuse the behavior of our government officials simply because they hold the positions that they hold?
Is that the only bar?

If that’s the case then Ken Lay and his Enron buddies shouldn’t be prosecuted for their lies. They told their shareholders lies and their shareholders lost their shirts.

Rummy’s propaganda may enlist more unsuspecting people to fight this unjust war.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 1, 2005 7:22 AM
Comment #97380

I choose to believe what Fox news tells me due to all those years of listening to the liberal press telling me how great life could be by telling lies & allowing the demorats to take care of me, my children and parents

Posted by: John Right at December 1, 2005 7:43 AM
Comment #97389

Democrats are more of a USA based admin, not wanting to go out and fix the world and ignore the BIG problems here. Let’s get America working and then work on the worlds problems. The jobs “we” don’t want is because they don’t pay enough to survive on. Let the Mexicans have the jobs, they are the ones living 3-4 families in a house just to survive? The companies don’t want to pay a fair wage and that is a Republican motivated move for illigals to be here in this country. And by the way cut cut cut cut cut on programs that help Americans. 3ooo scools have been built in Iraq and the schools of New Orleans are still not open? What’s going on here? I am a very disgusted Veteran.

Posted by: eric at December 1, 2005 8:47 AM
Comment #97403

You know Jack, being negative and being blind aren’t the same thing. I’m sure that when there was a Democrat in the White House you were full of positive thoughts. Being oblivious to the damage this president and his administration has done to our country both here and abroad only shows me a complete disconnect with reality.

Posted by: Marko at December 1, 2005 9:50 AM
Comment #97408

I choose to believe what Fox news tells me due to all those years of listening to the liberal press telling me how great life could be by telling lies & allowing the demorats to take care of me, my children and parents

==============

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

That is who owns the media, all channels, from radio to the net. You’ll see it is only five companies that hold a vast majority of what you hear see and read. If you look closer, I do not see one “liberal” media source there at all.

Wake up fool. The media is a disconnect from reality, every station has its goals and objectives, each company has its own stakes in what you believe is “truth”.

What it comes down to is selling you something. The commercials inbetween the dead air space is the only thing these people care about, so they put any kind of dribble they can to make you watch so you buy you new ford explorer, your stupid cell phone, your new jeans, nice makeup. Its all a wasteland of over-indulgent, mass consumption almighty dollar BullSh**.

So go ahead and believe fox if you want. Its clear to me that is Faux, so i won’t tune in. Politicians have been known to be liars and cheats since the beginning of time. Do you really believe that this current administration is above that somehow? Its clear to a lot of us that they have take that art to a new level.

But Fox news says everything is going fine… that every other station is too “liberal” to believe. Thats hogwash.

“Liberal” and “Conservative” do not mean anything man. If you approach life with only one of those two perspectives, you will miss a lot.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 1, 2005 10:14 AM
Comment #97481

John

Ken Lay and his Enron buddies built their organization under Clinton. Their main business was arbitrage largely created by government regulation. Their crimes were revealed and punished under the Bush Adminstations. You can invoke the name Enron all you want. It means nothing to your argument unless you are anti-Clinton.

Marko

I think Clinton generally did a good job and have written that on many occasions. Being a realist means being a realist. It means you look at things for what they are, not what you want them to be and not what you fear them to be.

Being smart means looking at any situation and finding opportunities (i.e. good). Usually they call that being an optimist, but it is more like being a proactive realist.

I have heard the pessimists my whole life. I don’t believe them anymore. There are always opportunities available. Even the losers are right, they can’t enjoy life and usually they are wrong. All I know is that I have been optimistic for fifty years and it has paid off a lot better than pessimism. Eventully I will die. But until that time I see no reason for premptive surrender to the dark side.

Posted by: Jack at December 1, 2005 2:36 PM
Comment #97492

Jack:


Ken Lay and his Enron buddies built their organization under Clinton. Their main business was arbitrage largely created by government regulation. Their crimes were revealed and punished under the Bush Adminstations. You can invoke the name Enron all you want. It means nothing to your argument unless you are anti-Clinton.

i asked you about accountability, not about Enron. Go back and re-read thoroughly; it helps. If by me using Enron confuses you, there are many other examples of horrible things being done to believers while the believers are consistently lied to. See the recent catholic church scandals for that.

The shareholders were lied to by the executives of Enron. The shareholders paid the consequences for those lies.

The American people were and are still being lied to by this administration. The soldiers are paying the consequences with their lives.

Evidently, Jack, you’re okay with someone lying to you as long as they have an ‘R’ affixed to thier armband. Me, on the other hand, loathe being lied to. It’s a deal-breaker. Republican, Democrat, Martian or Earthling, you lie, you loose credibility.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 1, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #97529

John

If you know Enron is not a Republican issue, don’t mix it in with your statements. It is a propaganda ploy and I have to call it each time I notice. You can’t now claim it doesn’t matter. If you don’t want it noticed, don’t use it inappropriately.

What Eron guys did was illegal. I think we should punish illegal behavior no matter who does it. They were found out and punished during the Bush Administration for crimes largely committed under Clinton. Does that satisfy?

Bush didn’t lie. I have quoted various factcheck.org about this many times. We have a policy disagreement that you want to make into a moral one.

Posted by: jack at December 1, 2005 4:21 PM
Comment #97530

Aldous, and all the other folks on the left being called “pessimistic” when they feel they’re only being realistic, may want to consider that when Jack uses that word he might actually only mean it the way Bush does when he uses words like “victory”, “democracy” and “freedom”.
In other words, he may not really mean that at all — he’s only posturing, and thinks it makes him sound real good.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 1, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #97549

Jack, I recently attempted to specifically exclude you, as a seemingly reasonable and intelligent man, from my occasional rants and slurs against the right-wing troglodytes, apologists, sycophants and dumbasses. Between your contributions to this thread and the one after, I’m really beginning to re-think that separation. You’re moving backward pal.

There’s still time for you to open your eyes and see things for how they really are. Leftists have smarter minds AND more decent hearts. What we want will benefit ALL americans, including you and your family. We are now going to reign ascendant and leave the far right back in the fringes where it belongs. Join us; America will be a far, far better place for us all.

Posted by: roger at December 1, 2005 5:10 PM
Comment #97551

…and one point further, Jack. Where were you with your concerns about pessimism and negativity when Monkey-in-chief was using and abusing them to sell his illegal war in Iraq?

Posted by: roger at December 1, 2005 5:12 PM
Comment #97555

John Right: choose to believe Fox “News” if you will, but by doing so please remember you forfeit any right to tell us we’re wrong when calling you and others who do similarly complete and utter morons.

Posted by: roger at December 1, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #97561

Jack,

Just a quick note. As far as Enron goes, if you want to say that Bush isn’t to balme and throw it on Clinton. Well, you may want to rethink that. Actually, Enron started and was able to do all the acounting with out checks, due to the tax rules and tax breaks passed under Reagan. Also, the deregulation of energy companies is what led to the Enron debacle. Not one of the tax changes took place under Clinton, but all under Reagan. He set the foundation for Enron and the other companies.
As for prosecuting them? WHO? I haven’t seen Bush’s friend, Ken Lay have any charges against him yet. He is walking scott free as we speak living high on the hog while all the while 4,000 employees are going to have to suffer for his greed. Clinton had nothing to do with it. I don’t have a problem with you bringing up the past to try and explain the future. But if you do, take it to the place it actually began.

Posted by: Rusty at December 1, 2005 5:40 PM
Comment #97564

Rusty

I don’t think Enron was Clinton’s fault. But it was not Bush either. I am just complaining when it is used casually as it was.

Enron’s business was created as a result of deregulation, but it made its money on arbitrage using government regulation. It got out of hand. Exectutives did illegal things. They were crimes. There is no argument about that. So why bring it up at all? That is why I jump on it.

Posted by: Jack at December 1, 2005 5:45 PM
Comment #97585

Jack,

Re-reading the previous posts, I don’t see where anyone accused Enron of being Bush’s fault. It was being used as an example of why accountability is important, nothing more.

Posted by: Charles Wager at December 1, 2005 6:21 PM
Comment #97586

Jack:
re: Enron
“So why bring it up at all?”

Gee, I don’t know…
Maybe because Lay was the Bush campaign’s largest financial backer?

Or because Enron employees were taped saying things like:

“When this election comes, Bush’ll f*cking whack this sh*t, man. He won’t f*cking play this price-cap bullsh*t.”
And:
“Government affairs has to prove how valuable it is to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling.”
And:
“It’d be great. I’d love to see Ken Lay be Secretary of Energy.”

But of course though that never happened, we do know that the Vice President did meet numerous times in closed-door sessions with Lay to discuss the administration’s energy policy.
And on April 17, 2001, after one of those meetings took place, (the subject of which Cheney has acknowledged was the “California energy crisis”) the following day, Cheney told the LA Times that the Bush administration opposed the institution of price caps in California.

And long before any of Enron’s thievery occurred there was:
Bush and Poppy Caught on 1997 Enron Tape; Skits Make Fun of Accounting Scams
Sorry kids, the links on that link don’t seem to be working any longer — but I remember seeing the video of the skit before, and it might still be hiding somewhere else on the internet.

Anyway Jack, I think that’s why we feel we can bring Enron up in direct relation to the president.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 1, 2005 6:22 PM
Comment #97592

Oh, and btw Jack, you really should try to see the documentary ‘Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room’. I promise you, after seeing it, you’ll never want to accuse us of unfairly trying to smear the Bush Administration of their direct complicity in the bankrupting of California.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 1, 2005 6:38 PM
Comment #97602

Jack,

I get your point. On this we do agree, was a bad example. However, John’s point in the post about war and such all came under Bush’s watch. Had nothing to do with Clinton. I don’t think I am willing to call Bush a liar, however, he has made huge blunders in planning and his case for war. I have a hard time with Bush defenders who protect him for being wrong. Nothing he or Rumy said about Iraq in leading up to the war has held true, except that Hussain is/was an evil dictator. Everything else that was used has been proven to be wrong at best. I can see why some call him a liar. Either way, wrong or liar, he is a baffoon as far as Iraq is concerned.

Posted by: Rusty at December 1, 2005 7:22 PM
Comment #97604

Jack,I have nothing against being optimistic. I have nothing against looking at things in a positive light. There must be a point where you can distinguish between legitimate complaints and having a positive attitude. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I have a very upbeat attitude and outlook on life, but that shouldn’t stop me from wanting a responsible government and a better world. That requires me to look at things I sometimes don’t like to see. This includes commenting on things I don’t like with Pres. Bush and his administration.

Posted by: Marko at December 1, 2005 7:26 PM
Comment #97653

Charles

It is the juxtaposition. I sometimes use tricks like that myself. It is fun. It has plausible deniability. I don’t hold it against anyone for using the gambit, but this one is getting kind of old. While it has plausible deniablity, it is not really a plausible connection.

Adrienne

Enron gave money to the ones they thought would win. Republicans were winning more in the 1990s and they got 74% of the money. That means the Dems still got about $1,550,000.00 from Enron. Enron was a bipartisan giver, but it didn’t help them. The Bush Administration did nothing to help when Lay called Commerce Secretary Don Evans to warn that its bankruptcy might be imminent. And it didn’t help with the Justice Department.

The Enron case is studied in B-schools to show how political “investments” don’t pay off. All Ken Lay seems to have gotten for all his money was a couple of pictures with political leaders and a night in the Lincoln bedroom.

And of course he gave you guys something to talk about.

Let me repeat one more time. Enron executives acted illegally and unethically. When convicted they should be punished. You have never heard me or any prominent Republican defend Enron’s illegal behavior.

Marco

You can comment. I just worry about your health if you take it too seriously.

Posted by: Jack at December 1, 2005 8:48 PM
Comment #97682

I am simpley in awe reading all this liberal (I hate everything always and all the time) trash!! If you wanted to punish crimes so bad, You all should look in the mirror! I think you libs are upset because its not popular to SPIT on American troops when they come home from protecting your rights.

Posted by: philip zalba at December 1, 2005 10:02 PM
Comment #97758

Philip,

Be very carefull hear Phil. First question for you. Where and when did you serve in the military?

Also, many of the writers in this blog are the very libs you are refering too. They also happen to have served in the US Military in Nam and Golf War 1. Many of them are questioning the Pres and his admin.

I also have seen no one in this blog advocate SPITING on our soilders. I don’t like Terrell Owens, but I Love the Philly Eagles. I don’t approve of Bush’s handling of IRAQ, but I’ve never talked bad about the men and women serving in the war. Fighting to protect you and I, oh, and by the way, protecting the right of dodgers like Bush.,Chenney and Rummy. Three men who when the time came for them to step up and serve over seas, all checked the box, do not send over seas, or got deferments not to serve.
I just heard Gen. Tommy Franks tonight on Fox News state that we here at home who are debating the reason for going to war are not hurting the moral of the men and women fighting in Iraq. He said they understand attacting the president isn’t attacting them. But the military has a job to do, and they will do their job until the President say’s it’s over.
After all, Clinton served for eight years and the Republicans were bad mouthing him and saying how he was deminishing our military. Isn’t that hurting the moral of the troops if you bad mouth the commander-in-cheif?

Posted by: Rusty at December 2, 2005 1:40 AM
Comment #97808

Philip, please. This is a forum for adults. Perhaps your school newspaper would like to publish your idiotic tripe, but in here it just makes you look like an ass.

Posted by: roger at December 2, 2005 9:34 AM
Comment #97875

I Served in vietnam sir… And when i got off the air plane there were protestors spitting on us telling us we were Killing Babies and small children! so Please do not tell me you liberals support (the troops) And yes is does affect the men on the ground.. You know like we will never win or ABU GRAB or the likes of that.. All of the troops wonder why They are there,, if all people in this country are always being told that everyday Is A wasted day for them.. Things will turn out there!!!!!!!

Posted by: Philip at December 2, 2005 1:04 PM
Comment #97918

You should be proud of your service and shame on the fools who spat you you. Haven’t you learned by now that they are no more representative of the majority of the anti-war movement then or now, than the very few soldiers who actually did act dishonorably or criminally were representative of the vast majority of our fighting men and women.

The majority of americans think this war is wrong Philip, that’s just the way it is. YOu see it as lack of support for our men and women serving there, we see it as trying to make sure their sacrifices are not in vain. Until you’re ready and able to discuss things without sounding like a moronic banshee, you’re not going to get any respect for your views, regardless of your service.

Posted by: roger at December 2, 2005 3:21 PM
Comment #97927

Philip,

You are to be commended for your military service to our nation. That can never be taken away from you. I do not condone the actions of the people who spat on you when you came back to this country. I know for a fact you were not the only one who was mocked for your service.

However, I also happen to know American Soldiers did kill women and children in Vietnam. I hope not on purpose but it did happen, that’s a fact. In Iraq today our troops have killed thousands of women and children. I know in time of war that this is inevitable but we don’t have to like it.

As for moral, don’t listen to me. Go to Fox News (Hannity & Combs) and look up Thursday evening show. Listen yourself to the remarks of Gen. Tommy Franks. Let’s see, listen to Tommy Franks, or listen to Philip? I choose Franks. Listen to my cousin, Marine Sgt. Troy Waddell currently serving in Iraq (who says he and the guy’s don’t listen to us here in the states on either side), or listen to Philip who is sitting home like me with no first hand info? I choose Marine Sgt. Troy Waddell. By the way, my cousin is a die hard republican and an avid Bush supporter. He will not talk negativly about the war itself but he will speak of a great number of mistakes he believes have been made.

Now with the news twist about the US paying to have propaganda placed in the Iraqi news papers so they hear what we want them too. Makes me think our troops only hear what they want them to also. After all, we know the armed services radio will not allow anyone on their airwaives that doesn’t support the war. Only Rush, Sean, Savage and company get to spew their remarks to our troops. That’s a fact.

Posted by: Rusty at December 2, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #100221

“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790”

It does not matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us “infidels.” the peaceful Muslims are afraid to lend a hand. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die? In countries without freedom you will be killed.
So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer
to the second question: What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan is clearly for terrorists to attack us, until we are neutered and submissive to them, If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We’d better know it too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost!!


Posted by: Fred Evans at December 8, 2005 1:16 PM
Post a comment