Slashdot Mirror
Rumsfeld Requests 24-hour Propaganda Machine
jasonditz writes "The BBC is reporting that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the existing propaganda systems in place and insists that the US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims. In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
I think that it is double plus good!
- Tempestdata
Propaganda comes in 3 flavours:
White - factual.
Grey - some facts, some half-truths and a little bit of lying.
Black - all lies.
Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.
That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.
That boggles the mind.
If Rumsfield wants to improve the image of the United States, he and the rest of the Bush administration should simply resign.
On the other hand, when you're a force that's saving lives and making things better- as the U.S. military was in Indonesia- our popularity goes up. The problem isn't the perception of our foreign policy, the problem IS our foreign policy. The neocons need to get out of their little alternate universe of spin and start dealing in the real world, like the old-school Republicans of Bush H. W. Bush's administration.
The history of government propaganda is long and diverse, and includes successes as well as failures. Effective propaganda does not need to be evil. During WWII, Allied propagandists printed newspapers for Axis soldiers, and they were much appreciated by their recipients for being rather more reliable than the official German news sources.
Rule 1 of effective propaganda is telling the truth. At least most of the time. There is nothing that really beats that, when it comes to convincing people.
You want to know why people listen to Bin Ladan and his ilk? Because there are a lot of poor, miserable, hungry people over there whose lives suck, and he (and Zarquai and all the rest) are managing to successfully convince them to blame an innocent third party. Ok, not ENTIRELY innocent *cough*assassinations*cough* but still, the theocrats and fascists sitting in power are FAR more to blame than the US.
And when people are hungry enough, and desperate enough, and you tell them, "THAT guy! HE'S to blame!" They'll believe you.
Especially if That Guy has never done a damn thing they've ever seen to help them.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
If the story is accurate, and if it is not being reported by US news outlets, then yes. If you have been conditioned to think that Al Jazeera is to be automatically dismissed as a propaganda outlet, then the bias in our media outlets has done its job very well. Seek information, seek differeing views, read and listen to views from as wide of a variety of sources as possible - even if they are views that you do not agree with. Getting your news or information from a handful of sources, or worse yet choosing to get your news only from sources that hold a bias with which you personally agree will leave you ill-informed and in a poor position to make informed decisions and to form informed opinions. Personally, I fall far to the left, yet I realize that if I were to only listen to, say Air America, I would be no better informed than those who only watch Fox News.
Doesn't necessarily fit the "news for nerds" mantra...
Because "news for nerds" is really "advertising dollars for Slashdot's parent company", and this article is a clickfest goldmine.
The article is really about Rumsfeld being, gasp, honest about one of the fronts of the war. About how al-Qaeda is very media savy. Kneejerks will misinterpret this as Donald "Big Brother" Rumsfeld trying to control their minds.
Maybe Mr Rumsfeld should talk to the editors at Slashdot. The seem to have a good grip on this community already.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
What the US needs is to act with caution and responsability and be a good world citizen. Stop using torture and avoid collateral damage in foreign countries. Demand the same things from both friends and foes (like, why let Israel have illegal nuclear weapons but bash Iran wich has none nor the ability to develop them).
et rid of the need to alter the reality and the problem is solved.
HTTP/1.1 400
Well .. I dont think muslims have a problem with all cartoons. Just cartoons that make fun of religious figures they respect.
... In the east, this is just not culturally acceptable.
:)
This is off topic.. but... I'm hoping some people will read this and help them 'understand' the behavious of those rioters.
I know you were just joking around, (or maybe the right word is 'think') but to me (a muslim) the cartoons of prophet mohammad were mildly amusing. Especially the one that said "STOP! we have run out of virgins!". But I see the reaction by other muslims to be more cultural than religious.
Its hard for a westerner to understand. But think of a religious figure such as a prophet as a father figure.
In the west, its okay to say things like "I hate my father." or "My father is a S#%^@#"
In the west, its okay to make fun of Jesus. Here is one I heard while living here in the west - "Q: Never ask yourself What would jesus do? Answer: Coz He'd Get crucified and DIE!" I am willing to bet that any practicing christian who reads this might be amused, but would more likely find it unfunny. Some would find it offensive. This is in a culture that is quite tolerant about making fun of people who are in a position of respect.
Now, if me.. a brown muslim guy, were to go the the American heartland and crack similar jokes at peter's expense. I would eventually run into a christian red neck would think I deserve a punch.
Think of those rioting muslims, as the lowest level of muslims. They are the brown trash. They are the economically poor, religiously fanatic, aggressive, cocky mob. They are being constantly told that the west is targetting muslims, and then they are seeing jokes made about a person they respect. What do they do? They riot. Bloody idiots.
The majority of muslims over the world, simply frowned at the prophet being made fun off. Very much as they would frown if you insulted or made fun of their parents. It is a cultural thing.
Some like me, realized that the west didn't mean to offend me, and we take it in our stride, giggle, smile and point out 'hey buddy.. that was a bit insensitive"
Another thing I want to point out.. that the word "Muslim" is about as descriptive as "Christian". There are as many kinds of muslim as there are kinds of christian. Baptist, Born Again, protestant, presbeterian, orthodox, catholic, etc. There are many differences between each of them.. Most of the terrorism, and a lot of the rioting is being caused by a particularly extremist sect that is deeply entrenched in Saudia Arabia, and was the backbone of the Taliban. Wahabism. It was founded by an Islamic scholar Abdul Wahab. I am not a wahabi.
- Tempestdata
When we helped arm and train the Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin) to fight the Soviet Union, we promised to help them rebuild their country after. Instead, we left Afghanistan to their warlords, and eventually the Taliban.
We did not aid them in rebuilding their country. Once they accomplished our common aim (displacing the soviets), we left them to their own poorly-funded devices.
Yeah. Not keeping promises is part of what got us into this mess.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Anti-Americanism != reporting the revolting things perpetrated by the US military and/or government in the name of the US.
It might surprise you, but Al Jazeera *is* an unbiased news source. If you'll think back a few years, you might remember that it was generally lauded in the Western world prior to 2001 as an example of professional, unbiased journalism in the Arabic world; it was only when the propaganda machines were turned on that they suddenly became a "problem". Al Jazeera hasn't changed, though - it's just spin, and you seem to have fallen for it head over heels.
BTW, you also may (or may not) know that Al Jazeera is generally regarded as pretty pro-Western in the Arabic world. And while it's not a guarantee for unbiasedness, I'd much rather trust a news source that's hated by the propaganda machines and fascists on *both* sides, not one that's only hated by one side but loved by the other, because the former news source actually has a realistic chance of being reasonably unbiased.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Why not? Who says nerds aren't interested in politics?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Yeah, we've heard that comment a lot in the UK. I'd still say there's a difference of degree; if you published that WWJD joke in a big newspaper or national TV station in the US, there might be some people writing in with criticism, or whatever, but would there be violent riots? Many thousands of people marching around with placards such as 'behead the infedels', 'I love the prophet/lord/saviour more than my life', etc? I seriously doubt it. The degree to which Muslims want to impose their culture and morality on the rest of society seems to be significantly stronger than other cultures.
Disclaimer: There are exceptions, not all Muslims can be classified as one group, yes I'm generalizing, you may be an exception, etc.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
That's perhaps the most frustrating thing that non-Muslims see in this whole situation. We hear constantly that "it's a small minority", etc., but we don't see moderate leadership taking that visible stand and trying stand up for civilization.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I think the majority of Westerners are confused by how there aren't riots when someone blows themselves up in the name of a prophet, but when when they make cartoons about a prophet then all hell breaks loose.
Does killing children getting candy from soldiers not profane this prophet?
Because it is the same bunch of people rioting who are supporting that massive stupidity of suicide bombings.
Those that dont riot over the cartoons, are the same ones who dont riot over anything. They are the people just trying to get a job, buy a car, a home, go for a vacation, get a bigger tv. etc.
- Tempestdata
I honestly think I learned more about muslim culture in 2 posts by temestdata than I have in the last 10 years of reading the NY Times and watchin CNN. Sad.
Well, that and they'd like to categorize the people who criticize them as "terrorists."
Once the public accepts that "propaganda is necessary" and "this is a war of ideas," they'll see that as a mandate to crack down on the "enemy ideas."
Under this government's preferred reading of current law, you are technically providing support to terrorists by criticizing American leaders. All they need is a slightly more scared public; then they can get down to the important business of arresting political prisoners. (Not that they aren't doing this already to a degree; they've just so far limited it to Arabs because it's more acceptable to the xenophobic masses.)
Now, if me.. a brown muslim guy, were to go the the American heartland and crack similar jokes at peter's expense. I would eventually run into a christian red neck would think I deserve a punch.
From a westerners prospective if a guy punched you over this he'd be considered a random kook. He'd probably be arrested as well. What we see as westerners is a large group of organized people protesting in a fairly radical fashion that is not only leading to deaths but also seem to be almost winked at. This is a much different scenario than the random redneck. Not only that but the fact that the violence isn't well focused is what also bothers me... A guy in Denmark makes an off-color cartoon so people in Pakistan burn down a KFC? WTF? That's pure non-sense. Now, if you were telling your joke and a redneck guy would go out and burn down a mosque you may have a point.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Under the ayatollahs, you're muslim, christian, jewish, or dead. They fudged and let the hindus in the "protected" status (called dhimmi) because of practical military difficulties but islamic nukes take care of those just fine.
If you think that freedom is a possibility under the ayatollahs, you have no sense of history or a very strange definition of freedom.
WARNING: This never happens.
we in the west are losing the war of ideas with facist islam.
No. What is happening is that when you reduce yourself to the level of your opponent, as the US and increasingly the UK have done, it becomes impossible to take the moral high ground for the simple reason that you are no longer on the moral high ground.
such as Al Qeada and similar groups in Iraq
And there entirely because of American actions. Iraq was not an islamist state; Saddam and OBL hated each other with some passion. Even the term "Al Qeada" was in fact invented by the US and was not used outside until after 9/11.
So how do we convince others that our way is better? We're going to have to talk to them.
WRONG! Show them. Stop bombing and invading countries for their oil and stop locking people up for years without carge, never mind trial, on the say-so of a bunch of bounty hunters with no interest in justice, just in a nice pay-cheque. Not too hard, is it?
I'm surprised that people on slashdot would bash Rumsfeld for saying these things since ensuring a free expression of all ideas is supported by almost all slashdotters!
If he meant a word of that then perhaps. But he doesn't.
(hint to all americans: western-style logic does not apply to the Middle East
Hint to American government: locking people up with evidence is not going to win you friends. Just as installing a power-mad dictator into a country and supporting him with guns, planes, and bioweapons while he slaughters his own people will not make those people grateful when you come twenty-five years later to remove that dictator in order to secure the country's oil supply for your own use.
I do understand the Middle East,
You hide it well.
Maybe we can influence the cooler Islamic heads
Perhaps we should stop the billion-dollar recruitment drive for the other side then.
That is what Rumsfeld is talking about.
No, what Rumsfeld is talking about is what Rumsfeld always talks about: keeping Donald Rumsfeld in a position of power. He was doing it in the eighties when he made up the crap about invisible Russian submarines, he was doing it when he sold WMD to Saddam (receipts are all on file in the Senate Banking Commitee records, in public), and he was doing it when he acted to prevent the UN completing its search for those same WMD because he knew that, against all expectation, Saddam had in fact disposed of them all (partly by dropping them on the Iranians with help from "calibration teams" from the CIA under Bush Sr.)
Rumsfeld is an old liar who's been caught out again and again. But he's one of America's aristocracy and just can't be got rid of. He knows he, and Rice, can talk about democracy until the day they die but they'll never have to face an election if they don't want to. Hardy a glowing example of the superiority of the Western system of government.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
And when I say "anti-american" articles, yea saying that 24 propaganda is /. worthy, then articles about the Al Jazeera working with Terror Groups should be up on the home page too, or hell start covering some of the things the Arab media says about us, if all that which you comment on are "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", then it all is
We expect that sort of behavior from totalitarian regimes. When they do it it isn't news. When we start acting like the Ministry of Disinformation, it's not what you'd expect from a country with such explicit values. So it's newsworthy.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Come on now. There's plenty of reason to jump on the present administration but this isn't one of them. Every company, every public figure, every organization with an ounce of good sense takes a bit of care with public relations. They have to do so, otherwise folks, organizations and other countries who mean them harm and no good will own the field. If you are the United States military and you only let the liberal pressdanistas define what is reported and said and discussed about you then you're going to have major public relations problems. In other words, if that next door neighbor of yours who doesn't like you is the only one who speaks about you to anyone and everyone guess what everyone is going to think about you? It would be a good idea for you to be able to speak for yourself about who you are and the military in the United States, run by elected civilians, should be able to do the same thing. The very fact that so many of you automatically run to the 'propaganda' tag instead of the 'public relations' tag goes to show that the effort at public relations is needed.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
You missed the point didn't you? Where was your outrage and the outrage of the christian world when entire cities were being destroyed by the US forces?
Once again, I'm not a christian. Until you accept that it's going to be hard for us to come to any terms.
Where were the forces of moderate christians when the mass graves were being dug outside of fallujia to bury all the dead women and children?
Not to say that the innocent should suffer but I didn't see the Islamic community doing anything to stop Saddam's genocide.
Why are you outraged by protests and burning of a half a dozen buildings but completely silent when tens of thousands of muslims die when you firebomb cities?
Well, I guess if I'm going to be accused of firebombing I guess I really can accuse the entire Muslim community of 9/11. What's the old saying? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?
If you think violence is justified because of the invasion of Iraq I guess I can see the invasion of Iraq as justified by 9/11.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
A lot of these riots are sparked not just because of the cartoons themselves. There is a deep and brewing hatred between the west and the muslims. I see it and quite frankly it scares the hell out me. You see, just as you often see posts out here on slashdot, kuro5hin or other internet message boards by western internet users showing their rage and frustration with Islam. There are a bunch of people (thousands!) in that part of the world who want to show their frustration and rage at the west. Just as bad behaviour breeds bad behaviour, they are caught in a cycle. If your best friend crashes your car, you'll cuss at him and forget about it. If your grumpy neighbor you already hate crashes your car.. you'll sue his pants off. He'll hate you more for suing him, and might cause you trouble in some other way. You'll hate him even more for being such a dick after crashing your car.. and so on. Hate breeds hate. Western media is caught in this trap too.. they will focus more on the crimes and flaws commited by people who claim to be muslims, they have no reason to cover well behaved muslims. After all.. aren't they expected to behave themselves?
Another problem is political. The clerics and the tyrants in the region support this kind of behaviour. This outcry builds unity against a common enemy and makes people less likely to question their leaders, and their societies. They are less likely to cry out against the conditions in which they live. Maybe even blame the bad bad west for all of their troubles. This effect is not confined to the middle east.. look at President Bush's ratings right after 9/11. Soon as there was a common enemy, the americans united together to support their president. Even before he had reacted in anyway, or done anything. This is especially significant when we consider that the majority of the people didn't even VOTE for him.
this brings me to the third point. "He may be a thug. But he is OUR thug". This is why so many muslims were against the US attacking Saddam Husseins regime. Saddam hussein's government was hated by religious clerics the world over. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein weren't best buddies like the white house wants you to believe. The neighboring countries hated Iraq and were suspicious of Iraq as well. Hell, Iraq and Iran were locked in a costly war lasting 8 years. yet when America decided to attack and take out saddam hussein, apart from 2 or 3 arab countries.. pretty much all of them were unanimous in their objection. Why? He maybe a vicious dictator.. but he is OUR vicious dictator.
I do believe there has to be a dialogue... and I personally try my best. I do not have the time or the energy to even reply to all the posts I've had to this single post. I've pretty much used my entire sunday on this thread... Unless I abandon my career, I cannot do much more. It isn't a notion that hasn't crossed my mind btw.
- Tempestdata
In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
I think this is simply disingenuous. The United States certainly has propoganda organs, but I think it's indisputable that it also has the most free and open media community (circus) in the world.
I think Rumsfeld's point is more that, Fox news aside, every other media outlet in this country seems dedicated to 'taking down' the president in any way that they possibly can. In an era where a higher percentage of Washington reporters voted Democrat than REGISTERED Democrats, and where media networks formerly of some standing don't hesitate to run stories without research, plaigarize from web blogs, and outright fabricate evidence (Courier Font for the win, Dan) out of their irrational hatred of George Bush, I don't think it's suprising for a senior member of the administration to say that it would behoove the government to act more aggressively to get GOOD news about US efforts out and AROUND the anti-US media conglomerates.
-Styopa
I mean, your post sounds like you're parroting one of their ads. Have you ever gotten your news from another source?
"Absolutly not. You're making the assumption that I want to see muslims suffer. "
Your words made it sound like you didn't mind at all. You are completely indifferent to their suffering.
"To be honest I felt that the displacement of Saddam was going to be viewed in a good light byt the Iraqis. Honestly, how many Iraqis wanted to be under Saddam?"
Surely there was a more sane way to remove saddam. Besides saddam has been removed for a long time now and yet the occupation is still going on and so is the murder and mayhem.
"I don't understand why the Muslim community winks at the efforts of the militant islamic movements that seem to be helping Americans justify their efforts."
For the exact same reason that you and the rest of the world winks at the israeli occupation. In other words the muslim world cares about you exactly as much as you care about the suffering and death of palestenians. Not much.
"Are you a Muslim? What do you think needs to be done in order to set things straight?"
Easy.
1) Admit that Israel has won territory in a war.
2) Redraw Israeli borders to include all of the west bank and gaza.
3) Force israel to give full citizenship to all occupants of israel regardless of their religion or nationality (all civilized nations have done this with the people it has conquered).
This gets rid of the palestine problem once and for all. Once palestenians have voting rights they can then fully participate in the israeli democratic process and will not resort to violence. Being full israeli citizens they will also have rights to benefits like all other israeli citizens and their standard of living will increase.
If the above is not possible then pull the israeli borders back to where they were before the war and give the land back to the palestenians. Move the wall back to 1964 border, prevent all arabs from entering israel and all israelis from entering palestine for at least a decade. Station Turkish troops alongside the border for peacekeeping. Turkey is an ally of israel but a muslim country they troops would be respected by both sides. As a reward fastrack the joining of turkey to EU (which they want).
Either one of the above is possible if the US threatens to pull all aid from both countries and enforces a worldwide trade sanctions and a blockade.
At the same time pull out of Iraq, give full control of the iraqi oil wells back to iraq, let them join OPEC again.
Pull all troops out of the middle east, stop meddling with their countries.
So there you go, solutions that will work if anybody in the US has the guts to implement them.
evil is as evil does
Out of the billions of alternatives, why chose those two?
Because the only way to make a corrupt, treasonous, oathbreaking assbag look good is to hold him up against Hitler/Stalin/etc...
It's the same way the government deludes the simple-minded masses that they're really good guys who just want to protect us, blah blah freedom blah liberty.
proven yourself to be an idiotic moron.....
This is known as "insightful" on Slashdot....
Correction: This is known as "insightful" on any political discussion these days. Political parties manage to do the same thing, but without using phrases like "lying sack of shit," "asshat," or "idotic moron"
(usually)
I am so smart!
I am so smart!
S-M-R-T!
I mean S-M-A-R-T!
What kind of propaganda system do they want? Are they talking about a news service like Voice of America used to be for Eastern Europe during the Cold War? Basically an unbiased news service that brought the same news found in USA newspapers to people who had no access to non-Communist news sources? That service is already provided by CNN and, to a certain extent, the newer-more open Arab news services like al-Jazira.
Or do they want a focused pro-American pro-West service to counter the incessant anti-American message coming from Iran?
Perhaps they are talking about a 'black' propaganda service, where stories that may or may not be true are introduced into the 'Arab street' for the sole purpose of provoking an extreme reaction. The Arabs and the Pakistanis will go into violent riot mode on just rumors now. For example, I doubt that anyone rioting in Libya, Syria, or Pakistan has actually seen any of these editorial cartoons that have whipped them into a frenzy. It is also doubtful that anyone in the west would have started massive street riots without actually seeing the provocative images themselves. It's unlikely that provocative images or unproven news rumors would cause riots in the west anyway.
Having a 'black' propaganda service that could introduce false rumors would allow the controllers of this service to have a 'light switch' to start violent street riots in the Islamic world at any time that is convenient for them.
Hamas has won the election because fatah was not able to throw off the occupation and deliver freedom to the palestenians. They had nothing to lose so why not give hamas a shot and see if they could do something.
They are desparate people and really at this point have nothing to lose. I read someplace that the average palestenians makes something like 25 cents a day or something. No money, no freedom, no life, no hope.
Now that hamas has won the west will pull away all aid and palestine will be another north korea with massive starvation and staggering poverty.
Too bad, so sad.
evil is as evil does
Then why aren't any Muslims in the United States rioting? The truth is the whole cartoon thing is about politics. Muslims in the USA have a voice and avenues to express themselves. In these other countries Muslims are pretty much oppressed by authoritarian regimes. The cartoons just ignited all their frustrations about their lives and gave it focus. These people are angry but it's not about cartoons.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
lol ok you know you saying that is like fox saying they're fair and balanced. it's absolutly wrong.
/. IS UNQUESTIONABLY biased to the left part of that is because it hides stuff that would be considered right wing.
/. EVERYTHING he does is wrong pretty much.
Nope, it's not. There is a fundamental moral difference between those who promote freedom and those who try to stamp it out. I'm a promoter of freedom, but I will stamp on asshats who actively try to destroy it.
First, it is not biased to the left. That is idiocy of the highest caliber. A bias against Bush isn't a fucking bias. It's basic common sense and human decency.
To be biased to the left as an American site, America would actually have to have a left. Nice try, try actually learning *something* about politics rather thanspouting the idiotic Fox news bullshit you originally brought up.
God damn it. I'm a fucking Liberal in the classical sense. That means I have recognized the Left and the Right are both sicko fuckwads.
Here's a lesson:
Liberalism is the founding principle of this country. It's so simple it can be summed up in one sentence:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal."
The left believes in this principle. They also believe that the force of the state should be used against people to enforce this ideal. See USSR, Cambodia, etc. etc. etc. for examples of how fucking retarded this idea is.
The right *disagrees* with this principle.
Further, they believe that the power of the state should be used against people to prevent this. See The Axis, Franco, Bush, etc. etc. etc. to see how fucking retarded this idea is.
So, please could everybody STFU about leftists in America. They don't exist in *any* meaningful context. They were stamped out by the same asshats who were gung ho Hitler supporters before WW2. Not for any decent reasons. JFCOAPS (on a pogo stick) the primary hatreds of the Neo cons are the only fucking things the left got right while it existed here.
no this is the exact same question. you may not LIKE bush, but a lot of people do, or aggree with enough of what he's said/done to have voted him into office twice now.
I meant traditional American values rather than the destruction of them which is what is being sold to idiots who think the "moral destruction" of the country is being driven primarily by people who *merely don't fucking hate gay people*, rather than pulling their heads out of their asses long enough to see the simple fact that gung ho all out capitalism (which they keep supporting) is inherently socialy liberalising. After all, them faggots got money too.
He was voted into office the second time by exactly those people. Read the exit interviews.
The first time he was appointed by an act of treason by the SC. That's after fucking the election. Pay attention.
sorry try and convince me that bush hasn't made the right choices, some of them i'd agree some of them i wouldn't. on
Has he done anything right? It's theoretically possible. The inescapable fact is that pretty much everything he has done *is* wrong by any sort of widely held moral standard.
i was talking about the original poster you responded too..
I responded to your statement.
umm NO. he was NOT impeached about a fucking blowjob, he was impeached about LYING and trying to get others to LIE about said blowjob. huge difference. whether or not you aggree with impeaching him over that is another story.
Ummm, yes.
They stole millions from this country for a witch hunt. They tried to get him on.. what, like 5 different things?!?
Nothing stuck until they found a fat bitch who liked giving her soiled dresses to her mom?!?
Yeah. So he lied about it. That sucks, it's dishonest and asshattery of the highest degree.
He didn't make up a bunch of fucking lies in order to pursue some ivory tower intellectual strategy to blow up a bu
It's this dichotomy in Islam which seems so, well, contradictory.
.....Hell, did I just invoke Godwin?
There are calls within the Koran for the killing of infidels and calls for the faithfull to live in peace with them depending in which phase of the prophet's life they were written. But isn't the Koran the direct word of God? Surely, then, it's immutable? Presumably God does not keep changing his mind?
The Prophet is portrayed as an ordinary man, not the son of God. Yet cartoons portraying the Prophet lead to riots and killings and assasinations. On the one hand, he is a man, on the other it is not permitted to depict him?
On the one hand an Ayatollah can command the death of Salman Rushie and state that it's every Muslim's duty to carry this out, on the other hand every Muslim has the choice to ingore any fatwa he likes.
As for the treatment of women, well that's the most confusing of all.
As for Rumsveld's propoganda requirements, it's like pro-holocaust writings in Isreal.
"I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
I think Mr Bush is doing a fine job.
Let's see, we have two major terrorist attacks on the United States, where neither Bin Laden nor the anonymous anthrax mailer were ever caught. We have the completely failure of our intelligence and defense forces on 9/11 with no explanation and no plan to fix. We have a trillion -- a *trillion* dollars, do you have the slightest idea how much that is? -- pissed away in a war in a country most Americans couldn't identify on a map, for *nothing*.
We have double-digit increases in the military's main budget every year *on top of* this crazy war; and as a result we have cutbacks in all the services that might make life worthwhile if you weren't crazy rich.
We all watched over *days* while the government sat there and did nothing and we lost New Orleans. George Bush lost New Orleans. He didn't even *pretend to try* to save it. He didn't act concerned, he didn't do anything, and the city was destroyed.
But the worst part is all the dead. There are the thousands of American dead in the ruins of the World Trade Center, the thousands dead in the rubble of New Orleans, the thousands of young American men and women finding miserable and painful deaths in Iraq for nothing (not to mention the tens of thousands of young people returning multilated and crippled) -- and there are the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis killed by Americans, very many of whom were women, children, or simply people who were trying to mind their own business when an American bomb went off in their vicinity.
You think Mr. Bush is doing a fine job, do you?
On the contrary, even if Bush were impeached this very moment, based on the results of the first five years he'd still be by far the worst President the United States ever had.
Donate free food here