Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death »

Posted by: RickyDawkins 2 months, 2 weeks ago

9.3

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 135

Propped: 185

Comments: 74

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Narrated by actor and activist Sean Penn, the film exhumes remarkable archival footage of official distortion and exaggeration from LBJ to George W. Bush, revealing in stunning detail how the American news media have uncritically disseminated the pro-war messages of successive presidential administrations. Based on the book by Norman Solomon.

Read Full Story at video.google.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 74

0%
RickyDawkins2 months, 2 weeks ago

"I was able to attend a viewing of 'War Made Easy' last Saturday night at the National Conference for Media Reform. Much of what keeps this movie engaging are the dozens of carefully chosen news media clips generated during various American wars for the past 50 years, including large numbers of videos clips from the Vietnam war and the Iraq occupation. The magic of War Made Easy is that the directors carefully edited and arranged these clips to show us that nothing much has really changed: If an American president has decided that he wants to go to war, the watchdog American media is likely to become a lapdog and we will inevitably go to war.
When I was younger, I trusted in the wisdom of leaders who looked American Citizens in the eye and promised peace while brandishing weapons. Somehow, I grew less naive over the past two decades."
http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/06/11/war...
Reply
15 Replies
- 0%
  RickyDawkins2 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  ...cont
  Here are some of the predictable steps that occur when an American president presses for war. (All of these are well substantiated by "War Made Easy.")
  I. Public dialogue becomes simplistic. Consider Pat Buchanan's warning that "When the war begins, the debate ends." The media clips offered by "War Made Easy" substantiate the claim that once war is under way, there is no more media coverage for the rationale for the war, but only for the progress of the war. Once war is under way, it is produced like a TV show. The information from the war zone is tightly controlled by the government. The media does not protest this tight control, because it desperately craves the access and the market share.
  II. The President's case for war is always built upon deception; the official story is false or it omits numerous key facts. Instead, the case is made primarily upon spin.
  
  Reply
  14 Replies
  - 0%
    RickyDawkins2 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    ...cont
    III. Americans are portrayed as "reluctant fighters." We'd rather not go to war, but circumstances are allegedly forcing our hand.
    IV. Our government officials will exhort that Americans "want nothing for themselves," but that we need to go to war in order to spread freedom/liberty/democracy.
    V. The government and media never explain how the use of military violence will actually achieve the spread of freedom/liberty/democracy.
    VI. The president of the United States inevitably asserts that he is taking the high moral ground and that Americans actually love peace.
    VII. We are told that war becomes perpetual whenever it is used as a rationale for peace. As long as we seek peace, then, there must be war.
    
    Reply
    13 Replies
    - 0%
      RickyDawkins2 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      ...cont
      XI. Instead of pictures of maimed civilians, the media will inevitably become obsessed with the technology of the war machine. What results is "an idolatry of bombs and weapons." Anyone watching the coverage of the Iraq invasion will remember the intense American vitriol aimed at Al Jazeera. It should be clear by now, however, that Al Jazeera earned this wrath by daring to cover the results of American missiles pouring down into populated areas, whereas the American media preferred to show pictures of those magnificent sterile missiles being launched hundreds of miles from their targets.
      XII. In its effort to maintain friendly news coverage, the American military has embraced the technique of embedding reporters, which inevitably causes the reporters to bond with American soldiers, which skews the coverage dramatically. No reasonable person could possibly expect any independent journalism from an embedded reporter. It is "a new version of propaganda."
      Reply
      8 Replies
      - 0%
        RickyDawkins2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        ..,cont
        XIV. In times of war, the establishment encourages contempt for all those people who question the need for war. It accuses them of being "not interested in victory," or "daring to call the President stupid," or "defending a torturer [Saddam Hussein]."
        XV. Wars drag on, and eventually they become so expensive and so obviously bereft of benefits to Americans that the government needs to heave criticism upon those who would try to stop the American aggression. Therefore, special government venom is reserved for those people like Senator John Murtha, who dare to advocate that we "cut and run." We are told that once you start a war, you can't stop. After all, stopping the fighting would allegedly cause the need for more and bigger wars. And the media easily buys into this crazy rationale. "War Made Easy" presents a startling statistic. In 1968, no paper in any major city presented any editorial position for withdrawal from Vietnam.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        Endoscopy2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Poor Ricky
        A super lib group makes a movie to make it seem that the EVIL American President just drags the whole country along to war just because he feels like it. All lies all of them.
        And you believe that conspiracy crap.
        The president does not have the power to make war only to defend if attacked. The power to make war is in the hands of congress. So the EVIL President has to fool the congress. This is a foolish concept. FDR must have done it to get us into WW2 right. Then Truman created Korea. etc. etc. etc.
        Of course the fools that keep repeating the lie that Bush lied believe this garbage. This is the easiest lie to refute but the true believers turn deaf ears to the truth. After all Lord Soros has spoken and everybody must fall in line. Doesn't matter that the entire western world for 7-8 years before the Iraq invasion was saying the same thing Bush said. He lied.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Endoscopy2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        How did Bush before he was president convince all of those intelligence agencies and leaders that his lie was truth?
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        pongping2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        He must have used Scott Ritter and Hans Blix.
        Reply
        
        0%
        agoodlibertian2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        endo, you are a fool. Of course Bush lied. How many people
        have to come forward with proof before you realize you have been dupe? Another question: What is your number? This is the question I ask republicans I know, what it means is How many times can you be duped, fooled until you realize you have been conned. So endo what is you number? Bush and his cohorts have already lied and fooled most republicans over a thousand times already. Anybody and I mean anybody that has been lied to and still believes those lies after it has been proven that they were lies that person is a complete fool or rather just a stupid and brainwashed republican. How can we take you seriously?
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        antibrainwasher2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Endo's number is infinity. You are talking about a creationist who thinks the earth is 4000 years old, created by the baby jesus. He is a dogmatic, entrenched, hard right creationist social conservative republican shil.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        TheRealizer2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        It appears in Endo's case that the lights are on but no one is at home!!
        Reply
        
        0%
        djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Short answer. He didn't. None of the agencies nor any of the leaders advocated an invasion and occupation.
        Reply
    - 0%
      rimbaud2 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Well, at least some of the "double-speak" ended in the Bush administration: we chose pre-emptive war and there was little of that "reluctance" stuff.
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - 0%
        jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        As a pre-emptive war, it has been enormously successful. However, if we withdraw in the next couple years, the world (including the U.S.) would have been better off if we had re-armed Saddam instead... even when considering the ludicrous risks that re-arming him would have entailed.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        DeadXXXManXXXTalkin2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        ''As a pre-emptive war, it has been enormously successful''
        a simple question from a simple man:
        how do you know a pre-emptive war is successful if what it was meant to pre-empt never had a chance to happen? how do you know what MIGHT happen WOULD HAVE happened, in other words, if you never allow the chance for it to happen? How can success be measured when there's nothing to measure but 'would haves'?
        'would haves' don't have enough substance-if the dog would have run faster, he might have caught the rabbit
        :-)
        under the criteria of 'it never happened and was pre-empted, therefore the war, since we won, was a success' every pre-emptive war where the 'pre-empters' conquer is a success before it even starts, as long as you kill the other guy to prevent whatever it is you say is gonna happen from maybe happening
        a little tricky and convoluted, perhaps, but the philosophy of pre-emptive war is likewise tricky and convoluted, so it's a fitting convolution.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        DeadXXXManXXXTalkin2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I have to admit I have no idea what we pre-empted in Iraq-or Afghanistan for that matter, that was retaliatory, not pre-emptive. In Iraq we were told we were pre-empting use of WMD's and the development of nuclear weapons by Saddam.
        That was the central piece to the drive to war-removing a dictator, fostering a new democracy etc was garnish that was elevated to the main course after the plate was found to be empty
        It's one thing to base US foreign policy on conjecture-anticipating future events is part of government I suppose, tho I'm not sure there's a great majority of instances of anticipatory foreign policy working out swimmingly. But basing it on things like 'Saddam may develop nuclear weapons in less than x amount of years', and then finding out the intel was bogus, that is only a recipe for pre-emption of sanity
        Reply
0%
jordan112 months, 2 weeks ago

I really do admire people who keep trying, keep trying & keep trying to get through to others who have such tunnel vision. The people we choose to be 'leaders' aren't our best friends. They're our employees. We've put them in charge of the most precious thing we own, which is this country. And yet, rather than critically analyzing what they do or say, we choose a side and dig in, refusing to consider their intentions could be self serving, or criminal, or flawed, or against our own interests. We've been propagandized. Why aren't we, as a whole, furious about it? Why does so much damage have to take place before people wake up?
Reply
0%
jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago

Now, if you could only convince others who would make war of the same... what a wonderful world it would be!
Reply
29 Replies
- 0%
  Beau78902 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Don't you think there should be open and honest public debate about waging war? I think that's the point being made here--not that there should never be war under any circumstances.
  Reply
  28 Replies
  - 0%
    jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    Of course there should be open and honest debate! Never implied that there shouldn't be... I figured my 2 cents was what that was about. I hope you are not suggesting, however, that such decisions by our leader(s) should be put to public referenda... or, that once made, they should be subjected to constant referenda.
    Reply
    18 Replies
    - 0%
      Beau78902 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      No, I'm not suggesting that...I am suggesting, however, that those who oppose the leaders' decisions regarding war shouldn't be labeled anti-American for voicing their opinions.
      I'm also suggesting that the video shows that presidents (not just Bush) and media manipulate the pre-war discussion so that it's not open and honest.
      Reply
      10 Replies
      - 0%
        jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        "presidents (not just Bush) and media manipulate the pre-war discussion so that it's not open and honest."
        Beau, if you carefully analyze any decision and/or justification for a decision to the minutest detail, you will always find this to be the case. Back on the farm, when I made a decision and explained it to my dad, I can say in retrospect that I always selected certain facts and rationale to support my decision and ignored others. If I hadn't, it would have been paralysis by analysis and decisions never would have been made... and actions never would have been taken. That truly is the nature of being a "decider" as it was so clumsily, but succinctly, described.
        
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        0%
        antibrainwasher2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        If we didn't constantly rexamine the war, we'd still be bombing Vietnam, and that war was a foreign policy mistake as well. Remember the domino theory BS? 58 thousand americans died for that lie.
        Iran, now it has come out, was a neocon fantasy drawn up by the neocon dual citizen advisors to the Bush/Cheney pro Arab pro oil regime, to sent 4500 and counting americans to their DEATH to create a fantasy Iraq democracy, in a land where Tribalism is the ONLY thing that matters.
        Then this idiots war was sold through the zionist owned and operated media and the pentagon psy ops plants the media paid. COMPLETELY ILLEGAL.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        antibrainwasher2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        If you are at all concerned for this country and the future of our children, you have to be outraged at this horrible discrace of american foreign policy, the squandering of treasure, and the enrichment of the already super rich.
        90% of all economic gain over the last 8 years went to households earning over 300,000/year.
        And they can pass it on to their children tax free now.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78902 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        jim, there's a huge difference between an individual selecting what he thinks is valid in order to make a decision, and the media acting almost in concert to refuse to give the public information it might need to decide for itself whether a government action is a good idea.
        As for paralysis, Congress is also charged with deciding about certain actions--it needed to approve Bush's actions. And Bush chose to ignore information Congress needed to make an informed decision on Iraq.
        Of course, the link between news media's and the administration's malfeasance on Iraq is that had the people beeen better informed, they could also put pressure on their elected representatives.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Better informed about what? The full strategic rationale for going in? (BTW, Pearl Harber WAS NOT the strategic reason for the U.S. entering WWII) The necessity of going in even if WMD were never to be found?
        While the administration was fairly confident they would find WMD, they were well aware of the possibility that they might not. They knew they had to get boots on the ground regardless of that consequence... for multiple strategic reasons. The press and pundits were, for the most part, silent as to why.
        If I had no clue as to the possible strategic issues and reasons for going into Iraq, I too would be left to think that the administration were warmongers run amok as most here seem to think. IMO, that is where the independent press and paid pundits for those organizations let the American people down. The Fox News types of the world went simplistically "Rah! Rah!" Most of the rest went simplistically "Nah! Nah!" fueled by bitterness over hanging chads.
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        hyperbola2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Frankly I don't think you have any more idea of the "strategic" issues and reasons for going into Iraq than bushie and his zioncons. Which of the dozen different explanations that they have given do you think were the real reasons?
        As for your assertion that it was "successful" as a preventive war, that is nothing more than wishful thinking inside the propaganda bubble. We are weaker, much more heavily indebted, less secure and more detested than without the Iraq war.
        Reply
        
        0%
        Beau78902 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Yes. Better informed about the full strategic rationale for going in.
        And yes, America's entry into WWII was not about Pearl Harbor.
        Are you suggesting the Republicans believe that average Americans are too stupid to understand the complexities of international relations, and thus should hide their true intentions?
        That sounds kind of elitist to me.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Nope. I did not suggest that , Beau. Since you have seen things I have written and know what I have been saying... it is that the leadership cannot spell out strategic rationale for what it is doing all the time and particularly not in this instance... that is not because it is thought that the American people will not understand. It IS because our adversaries and/or those who have an agenda counter to ours will understand all to well. Foreign policy has always been and will always be a chess match of one form or another... and one that occurs on many levels.
        I have cited Turkey vis-a-vis possible fracturing of Iraq and Kurd independence as a particularly touchy subject. It is potentially a flashpoint for WWIII. No president will spell out for the world to hear, the virtually certain chain of events that will occur if the Kurds attempt independence. Doing so would totally undermine efforts to keep the more hot-headed amongst the Kurds and the Turks in check.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Beau78902 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        The Kurds are a potential flashpoint for WWIII, but Iraq / Iran / Pakistan are not?
        We may have fooled Turkey about Iraq (though I doubt it), but do you think we are or were fooling anyone else in the world (other than our own populace) about our true agenda in the region?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Where do you get that we are "fooling Turkey". That is not what I said, Beau. To handle matters delicately does not necessarily translate into someone being fooled. Just as there are political factions in this country, there are also political factions in Turkey. Add to that, the political factions in Turkey are enhanced by the fundamental Islam, Ottoman history, a Kurdish population within their borders and numerous other factors.
        Our "true agenda" is to keep the region from erupting into a devastating war... a war which likely would spread worldwide. Global dependence on oil, leading to vast wealth pouring into the region, makes the circumstances of the region a far higher risk for war than any other set of circumstances that have led to war in our past.
        Reply
    - 0%
      canadianrancher572 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      jimdoze- I run a business, well I farm, sort of a business, at times I have people working for me and I am in charge of resources, which is what government is in a way. When I make a decision to do some thing it is always questioned by me at a later dated and if it shows it is not getting results or is hurting my business the decision is reversed. When people ask me about it I admit to them that it was not the right decision and I was wrong, in other words I made a mistake. It doesn't matter where you go in the world politicians seem unable to say they have made a mistake or were wrong, to me the Iraqi war is an example of this, I will not say that all wars are wrong but it is a mistake not to question a decision as time progresses.
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - 0%
        jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Canadian. I grew up on a dairy farm and by the time I was in my mid-teens was doing the same as you are now.
        I agree with you up to your point about Iraq. At which point I totally and vehemently disagree. The Iraq war is very much misunderstood. Furthermore, for strategic reasons, the president can virtually never take his whole case to the public. The sensitivities of our dealings and relations with Turkey in re: our involvment in Iraq is as good an example of that sort of issue as you will ever see.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        hyperbola2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        So you don't believe in American democracy. You sound like one of the ZionCons who claim that they know better than Americans what is the right thing for us.
        Turkey is a good example since it has been a source of GOP and ZionCon corruption (especially with respect to drug dealing) for several decades now.
        Reply
      - 0%
        jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I would add that managing a farm or a ranch is similar only on the surface. Even at that, I am sure there are things, issues and decisions that must be made or dealt with that you would not want up on the local community bulletin board for all to see and weigh in on.
        Reply
    - 0%
      CRYMTYPHON2 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Jimdoze said: " hope you are not suggesting, however, that such decisions by our leader(s) should be put to public referenda".
      Why not?
      At the very least, a formal declaration of war should be asked for and voted on by our representatives.
      The current Empirial Presidency allows the Prez to send troops where he wants, with only budget approval from congress required.
      Once the fighting starts it is too late for congress to do anything but continue to fund it or look like traitors.
      
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        Endoscopy2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        "At the very least, a formal declaration of war should be asked for and voted on by our representatives."
        It was and then and only then did we invade Iraq. Congress worded it strangely but that is what they did.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        CRYMTYPHON2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Endoscopy, you know what I mean; not a budget request combined with kill-permission; but a formal, FDR type declaration of war with a role-call vote.
        The founding fathers did not mean the president to have the powers of indirect war. They are dead now and probably don't even vote*, but the 'needs of modern-times' excuse comes too easy.
        The cost is that the country feels that 'war' is a relative state; we are 'sorta currently at war-level 3 orange' or something.
        It is corrupting, because it is bureaucracy; it is vague like the weather, unreal like the deficit, without beginning or definable end.
        __________...
        * except in Philly
        Reply
  - 0%
    rightfromwrong2 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    absolutely..people should be given the facts not B.S
    Reply
    8 Replies
    - 0%
      TheRealizer2 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Sometimes facts would not justify a war, so spin is required!!!
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        cowboygrandpa2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Yeah, I'd like to see them slog thru rice paddies red with blood.
        Then rationalise the killing that ends only life not war.
        See the families from all sides suffering for the insane greed that starts and prolongs the blood letting. Let them suffer the agonies of the dreams that never cease. The voices of the dead that call out for justice.
        Oh, but wait. That is reality. They don't live in reality. They live in a dream world of political power and careless decisions with the lives of others.
        The nightmare is ours the dream theirs.
        Reply
    - 0%
      Endoscopy2 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      As far as Iraq people were given the facts that were being said by the intelligence community of our and many other governments. The leaders of many other governments were saying the same thing. President Clinton and his administration along with Democrat and Republican Congressmen all said the same thing. No deception or lies.
      Now it is quite the thing for looney libs to ignore history and say that Bush lied. Why is this?
      Reply
      5 Replies
      - 0%
        djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        "As far as Iraq people were given the facts that were being said by the intelligence community of our and many other governments."
        Another in a long line of bold face lies.
        On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
        
        Reply
      - 0%
        djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction â;; an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
        
        Reply
      - 0%
        djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
        http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/?gclid=C...
        Who is it again that benefits from ignoring history?
        Reply
      - 0%
        blowback2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        This war is on foreign soil.
        therefore it is beyond the legitimate scope and
        authority our government, Democrats and Republicans
        alike.
        This administration anticipated that the UN Security
        Council would vote this war. It was correct in that
        assumption. The Council would have done just that.
        Bush went outside the UN Charter and initiated
        a unilateral war, a war of aggression as condemned
        in Nuremberg. That makes this war illegal.
        In addition its justification was false and remains
        so today. We have no legitimate reason to be in that
        country.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        antibrainwasher2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Also illegal, the LIES and FALSE propaganda, and ignoring contrary evidence, and planting psy ops military propagandists in the corporate media.
        Sending 4500 americans to their death, for a neocon fantasy thought up by dual citizen zionist neocon presidential advisors, using 911 terrorist attacks by saudi Arabs, financed and planned and executed by Saudi, as an excuse to freaking invade Iraq for the benifit of Israel, who is writing and controlling american foreign policy, while obtaining 10 year guarantees of billions of military aid paid for by american tax payers.
        Reply
0%
nikkibabe2 months, 2 weeks ago

A war mongering nation, that has little respect for people of other cultures and countries who are thought to be dispensable by bombs and missiles. On the contrary, hell breaks loose even if one American soldier either kidnapped, killed or wounded in combat.
The latest example is the lies and distortions by respected people like Colin Powell with all his military discipline who had the courage to go and lie before UN to justify the invasion and occupation of a muslim country.
He is now a silent spectator to the devastation and destruction of an innocent country and its people and the vast humanitarian crisis his lies has created.
As for others who lied, they are not men of respect but just plain American crooks.
Reply
5 Replies
- 0%
  Endoscopy2 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  We are coming to your nation next. Bush is sending his SS people there to get you first.
  Why do you rewrite history? Most of the world for over 7 years previously were saying the same thing. But Bush lied.
  Innocent country? They invaded Kuwait, killed the Kurds with WMD, and he and his sons were killing people by the hundred thousands. The people living there were in terror of their own government. And you say "Innocent country", what garbage.
  Reply
  4 Replies
  - 0%
    djn3nunez32 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    Most of the world for over 7 years previously were saying the same thing.
    The big lie only neo-clowns repeat ad nauseum. Where is the list of countries that thought an invasion and occupation of Iraq was necessary because of the alleged WMD programs. Powell and Rice proclaimed earlier in 2001 that Saddan was not able to reconsitute his WMD programs nor was he able to rebuild his conventional military from the devastating first Gulf war.
    Reply
  - 0%
    vor2 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    You have bought into this talking point that everyone was in agreement with our evaluation of the intelligence. Of course they were! The majority of the evidence previously before Congress was of our own making and the same intelligence was shown to foreign intel agencies. Much of it was corrupt going back deep into the Clinton years. Much of that came from Chalabi and the INC who were on our payroll (starting early in the Clinton admin) and who had a horrific conflict of interest in seeing Saddam overthrown. Chalabi desiring to be the "democratic" Shiite strongman. He was later soundly rejected by his own people. He is a central figure in all of this that remains in the shadows (currently in Iraq).
    And the truly objectionable material supplied by Curve ball did not exist in the Clinton Years. We have some outrageous statements by Pelosi and others from the time but little action from Clinton.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      vor2 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Remember that he had "wagged the dog" in Sudan on 8/19/98 when he tried to kill Saddam. With Bosnia still an issue he wasn't about to move on Saddam despite pleas from the like of PNAC. And he had other matters (impeachment) to deal with.
      What Cheney and Bush handed to Powell were lies. The Germans knew it, had long before warned us that Curveball was a pathological liar and an alcoholic. But what he was saying fit the neocons needs just as OBL had done for them on 9/11/01. But these were lies. imaginative lies, but lies.
      Sure Saddam was a tyrant and certainly to have Uday in power would been disastrous for the Iraqi people but it was the weapons that Saddam supposedly held that led to his demise. Weapons he had not possessed for nearly a decade. This jibed with what the UN inspectors would later conclude and the Bush administration would deliberately ignore in the runup to war.
      Reply
  - 0%
    skeek2 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    Why do you rewrite history? Most of the world for over 7 years previously were saying the same thing.
    You don't even know history, only the distorted simpleton's version you have been spoon fed. This film is spot on, but obviously because of time it can only show so much, and there is so much more.
    The history your country has written about itself, its actions and the actions of other nations in this world is pure, nationalistic propaganda. Most people with a modicum of intelligence in this world know that. It is hapless, simple Americans like you that don't. That's what this film is talking about. Watch it, it's talking about you and why you think the way you think. Take a look in the mirror.
    Reply
0%
Charlson2 months, 2 weeks ago

The longer you live, the more you come to realize that our government exists for the few and on the backs of the rest of us. Truth is a dangerous reality that governments strive to control and the media is their tool to do just that. I've come to take anything from corporate news with a grain of salt. And usually try to get as many viewpoints I can to make an informed guess on what to believe.
Reply
0%
CRYMTYPHON2 months, 2 weeks ago

There is a book that describes the acts of past governments, wherein they persued some path of war or self-destruction even while knowing privately they had no way to win.
It is called 'The March of Folly' by Barbara Tuckman.
It is funny, horrible and facinating; makes you feel that the gods punish humanity through beaurocratic blunders.

Reply
10 Replies
- 0%
  jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Barbara Tuchman's voluminous tomes are very good and interesting reads.
  "makes you feel that the gods punish humanity through beaurocratic blunders"
  yet there are many who yearn for more of it... bureaucracy, that is.
  Reply
  9 Replies
  - 0%
    Goppy2 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    When you say, '... there are many who yearn for more of it ..." are you talkin bout Goerge W. Bush? GW: the guy for who 'Goverment IS the problem' has vastly increased the Federal bureaucracy. So I hope you aint makin assumptions bout who those 'many' you refer to are.
    But I recognize that GW aint really a Republican, he's a true Neo-Conservative through and through.
    But you do point to the fundamental difference between Traditional Republicans and Democrats.
    Republians believe that it is CULTURE that defines/saves a nation.
    Democrats believe that it is Goverment that saves a nation from the CULTURALISTS.
    Why?
    Because Goverment is the only common expression that permits ALL to be heard and accepted.
    From the Culturalists point of view, there is only ONE TRUE way that is to be accepted. A true recipe for chaos.
    Reply
    8 Replies
    - 0%
      Endoscopy2 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Minor difference with what you just said. Liberals like to get judges who are liberal and when things go the way they don't like the judges can change the will of the people to what libs like. Example in California, a thoroughly legally vetted referundum won over 60% of the vote saying that marriage was a man and a woman. The liberal judges ignored the legal vetting that took place and said that the law is now any two people. I guess the will of the people was culturist even though the state is a Democrat state.
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 0%
        antibrainwasher2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Will of the people of Alabama to deny public schools to blacks. Courts interveened by applying protections under the constitution.
        Right wingers are the one's appointing activist judges. Clanance Thomas is considered a complete insane right wing nut case by even moderate conservatives.
        Reply
    - 0%
      jimdoze2 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      GW astutely realized that he had much bigger fish to fry than the size of government. I, for one, have been disappointed with the growth of government. But, I understand the trade-off. Personally, I am all for reducing the size of government... with the caveat that the military be the last in line for the axe. As the founding fathers put it, the government is "to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." And not, as some would have it, the other way around.
      Reply
      5 Replies
      - 0%
        hyperbola2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        The bloated, corrupt pentagon is one the first things that Americans will have to cut down to size if they want to keep their democracy.
        Exposing Pentagon and CIA Corruption
        
        Politics â;; The Special Operations Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), who is also a two-star general, sent extensive government corruption and cover-up information to Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee - in 12 separate cases.
        http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/12/...
        
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        hyperbola2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Challenging the Militarization of U.S. Energy Policy
        
        Politics â;; The use of the US military to "protect" foreign oil supplies costs Americans at least $140 billion per year. This is not generating security, but increasing blowback against America throughout the world. It's well past time to stop garrisoning the global gas station.
        http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/12/...
        
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        hyperbola2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Collateral Damage: What It Really Means When America Goes to War
        Do No Evil â;; American Marines and soldiers have become socialized to atrocity. The killing project is not described in these terms to a distant public. The politicians still speak in terms of glory, honor, and heroism, in improving the world, in lofty phrases of political and spiritual renewal. Those who kill large numbers of people always claim it as a virtue.
        http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/06/04/...
        House Takes a Stand Against Pentagon Propaganda
        Politics â;; The House passed an amendment to the annual defense bill last week that would outlaw the Defense Department from spreading propaganda to the American people.
        http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/28/...
        
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        hyperbola2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        The Pentagon Takes Charge
        Politics â;; When it comes to the Pentagon, don't count too heavily on change, no matter who the new president may be. It has developed a taste for unrivaled power and unequaled access to the treasure of this country. It is an institution that has escaped the checks and balances of the nation.
        http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/28/...
        An Oil-Addicted Former Superpower
        Politics â;; Like the USSR following dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the USA will continue to stumble on; but as the economy is eviscerated to pay for its daily oil fix, it will be seen as an ex-superpower. The Pentagon is a enormous gas-guzzler and capacity for multiple foreign military burdens will unravel. Thus are superpowers undone.
        http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/05/10/...
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        hyperbola2 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        The Real Matrix: The Pentagon invades your life
        Do No Evil â;; Taxpayer dollars in amounts that would have staggered Croesus have led to a revolving-door system of rampant corruption; more surprising is just how much that system is linked into your everyday life. The militarization of America is happening right in your apartment or house.
        http://donoevil.propeller.com/story/2008/04/25/...
        How to Sink America
        
        Money â;; Military adventurers of the Bush administration have much in common with corporate leaders of the defunct energy company Enron. NeoCons outsmarted themselves and failed to even consider how to finance their schemes of imperialist wars and global domination. The debt crisis caused by US militarism is now the Greatest Threat to the American Republic.
        http://money.propeller.com/story/2008/01/23/how...
        
        Reply
0%
cleare2 months, 2 weeks ago

anyone who wants to be president should be automatically disqualified. they are seeking the power and authority, not the responsibility.
power corrupts and war is generally effective in generating more power. (kinda backfired in iraq and vietnam though...)
i'm beginning to believe that the quest for power and the inclination towards war are hard wired in our species and profoundly emphasized in our american culture. that darned old medula oblongata!!! i'm not sure there's much we can do to stop it, all we can do is try to minimize it by not electing leaders who are willing to march off to war prematurely.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  hyperbola2 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  You make that statement because you are inside a propaganda bubble from cradle to grave. If you can be suckered into "military patriotism", then the "elite" can make lots of money off your gullibility.
  Reply
0%
riverdog2 months, 2 weeks ago

"War Made Easy" is an excellent example of what people can do when motivated. The task is to educate those still asleep or under the influence of the well coordinated government and media spin. Each person must do what he or she is able to do, but in the end, there's only one thing we can do in the near term. ROCK THE VOTE and throw these bums out.
Reply
0%
jjmathon2 months, 2 weeks ago

At least it is a positive spin
Reply
DeLeMaComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
- 0%
  doggammit2 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  You won't regret the long download DeLaMa... This video is "connect the dots" par excellence... Thanks Ricky! You are a true saint! LOL!
  Here's my two cents worth: The geographical situation of the actual USA is as near perfect a deterrent against military strikes from opposing nations as the globe can offer. As a result, coupled with overproduction of advanced military technology, it also offers the perfect pirate's cove from which unprovoked acts of aggression can be hatched and launched. If you think this hasn't dawned on American leaders since at least the Spanish American War...
  Reply
0%
hotday2 months, 2 weeks ago

In general politic is dirty.
Reply
DeLeMaComment removed: User banned.
DeLeMaComment removed: User banned.