Forthcoming Propaganda Alert

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Bush plans bid to rally Iraq support
Texas protests continue as Republicans disagree on conflict

Monday, August 22, 2005; Posted: 1:12 a.m. ED



CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- President Bush will launch a new round of speeches to rally support for the war in Iraq, advisers said Sunday, as protesters camped outside Bush's Texas home and polls showed weaker support for the two-year conflict.

Senior aides say Bush will attempt to portray the Iraq conflict in the context of long wars like World War II, which U.S. forces fought from 1941 to 1945.

They said the president also will invoke the September 11, 2001, attacks, arguing once again that the insurgents battling American troops in Iraq share the same ideology as the al Qaeda operatives who crashed hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

In a previous attempt this summer to boost sagging support for the war, the president delivered a prime-time, nationally televised address in June to a military audience in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. In his speech, Bush assured Americans that the conflict in Iraq was worth the sacrifice. (Full story)

The sacrifice includes 1,862 U.S. troops deaths, including a soldier who was killed by a roadside bomb Saturday near Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

"Our mission in Iraq is clear: We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror," Bush said in June.

"We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren."

But his remarks did little to move public opinion. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted August 5-7 found that 54 percent of those surveyed thought the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a mistake. (Full story)

The 9/11 commission's report, issued in July 2004, found no evidence that Iraq had any operational relationship with al Qaeda.

The CIA concluded in February that Iraq had become a training ground for terrorists who wish to attack U.S. troops -- a haven critics say did not exist before Saddam Hussein's ouster.

more on the story: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/21/bush.iraq/index.html

===================
Hmmm ... like The Big One ... WWII ... as I recall, that one was fought against two very formidable enemies with hundreds of thousands of troops, with real weapons and we used every bit of resources we as an entire nation could muster and even the atom bomb to achieve victory.

What is his plan for victory ?
What will constitute victory ?

We can't defeat an insurgency "in its last throes" ?
We can't secure the borders or keep the peace with just 140,000 troops against "the handful of dead-enders" ?

So now he will invoke the memory of a terrible, but somehow honorable war to help sell his "plan" of staying the course in an unjust preemptive war of aggression. He will use the spilled blood of past generations to justify our righteous, God-ordained duty to bring "freedom and democracy" to the world.

Prepare to be disgusted.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Where the hell have you been all this time? Bush said when we went into Afghanistan that this would be a war that lasted a long time, probably decades.

But you probably had your head up your ass for that, so it's not surprising that you missed it.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Where the hell have you been all this time? Bush said when we went into Afghanistan that this would be a war that lasted a long time, probably decades.

But you probably had your head up your ass for that, so it's not surprising that you missed it.

What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

Maybe if you'd get your head out of Bush's ass you'd see the truth too.

[Nbadan]

Did anyone listen to Scott Ritter on the Stephanie Miller show today? Scary stuff. The Bush junta wanted to be in Iraq in June, but the Bolton nomination delayed the springing of the diplomatic trap the administration already has set up to justify the war. The Neocons have made it seem like Iran is 'in its last throes' in nuclear weapons development, but truthfully Iran is still years away from having the bomb. However, the WH, using the same methods and the same shill media that it used to justify the war in Iraq, has already gotten the American public to accept sanctions and even an embargo against Iran. Well, thats war as far as Iran in concerned.

Now that Bolton is in place the new time-line for Iran is Oct-Nov. All military leave has been cancelled after Sept.

[Clandestino]

we are still in kosovo. why aren't you guy bitching about that?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Stop changing the subject!

We are NOT talking about Kosovo.

Typical repub neocon response. Diversion.

[JoeChalupa]

President Bush today mentioned the number of casualties in Iraq, for the first time I believe. Another Rove move?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

Maybe if you'd get your head out of Bush's ass you'd see the truth too.

WTF? Again, you guys are having a fit about Bush saying the war is a long drawn out process.

Taking down Saddam was but one campaign of said war, something akin to the Allies taking down Omaha Beach in WWII.

Head up Bush's ass? Please. You dumbass libs are the only ones with your heads up anywhere dark.

Bush has enough foresight to realize we're going to be fighting this battle with militant Islam a looooooong time. Probably longer than you or I are alive, unless something radical (read, nukes) happens.

When will you get it through your head? Radical Islam isn't going anywhere any time soon. It's more than likely going to be another Muslim European Expansion/Crusades type deal.

Sadly, some of you won't get it no matter what, so I don't even know why I'm bothering.

Bush is far from perfect in my eyes, but at least he has some historical perspective and foresight to call on, something some of you either can't grasp or don't have the historical background to call on.

One day when a mushroom cloud goes up over DC or NYC some of you might actually get the fucking picture.

Nah, on second thought you'll probably blame it on all on W.

[Murphy]

Hey Aggie hoops fan, dont you get it? Liberals hate consistancy, they hate people who stick to their guns and wont change their agenda and mission one bit, regardless of how ugly it gets. The love people who waffle and flip flop on issues i.e. " I did not have sexual relations" "I did have an innapropriate relationship" Why do you think they voted for Kerry, the love people who waffle on the issue!

[JoeChalupa]

He's seen the polls and Rove told him to get his ass out there and pump up the volume.

[boutons]

"Taking down Saddam was but one campaign of said war"

ah, I see, moving the goalposts again, re-defining, limiting the "Mission Accomplished" as just taking out Saddam.? Was that point made by shrub-in-flight-suit? no, it was "end of major combat operations", which was very clearly meant to be "end of the Iraq war", which of course was just one more lie.

Couldn't find WMD or any of the other reasons trumped up to "justify" the war as both "immediate" and "only option"? Now, we're fighting for "democracy and freedom". Jeez, who could possibly be against that motherhood?

And of course, the Iraq war, as the majority of people now agree (true-believin red-staters are slow and dumb and naive ) was/is not worth the cost and has not/will not make the USA safer. Iraq had no jihadis, now it's overrun with them.

Consistency? When one "reason" for the war didn't seem to excite/incite people, shrub and his posse of liars came up, inconsistentlhy, with another, and another, and another, the smoking gun mushroom cloud, the bio-weapons lab on wheels (Powell will die with that lie, negating his career), the aluminun tube, the african yellowcake. When NONE of those reasons turned out to be there, it's now "freedom and democracy". Consistency? Fuck no.

And consistency would mean planning for the post-war as well as for the war. Totally botched, but shrub can "get on with my life".

shrub has "historical perspective", "foresight"?? He mouths whatever words he's told to mouth. When he's on his own, it's mindless, simplistic, generic slogans, buzzwords, platitudes, motherhood, and the red-staters eat it up as "perspective", "foresight".

And now you're trying scare us with mushrooms clouds in the USA? Who has the capability to hit the USA with nukes? Iran (they have been "5 year away" for the past 15 years, and recently "10 years away" from now) and NK. So WTF is USA doing wasting its time and lives in fucking Iraq which didn't/never did have nukes?

[Nbadan]

Now, Joe, don’t be that way. This latest PR push is nothing about Poll numbers

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/nixon-bush.gif

[Nbadan]

Quotes from when President Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:


"You can support the troops but not the president."

--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)



"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."

--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)



"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99



" President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)



"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)



"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush



"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)



"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)


Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.

And, the Democrats aren't pointing this out with their every breath.

[Nbadan]

President Bush Knows the True Reasons He Started A War in Iraq, But He's Not Going to Tell
By Jason Leopold


Every year, right around the anniversary of 9/11 the Bush administration spins the public about the reasons 1,864 American soldiers have died fighting for a lie in Iraq. And every year, it’s just as crucial that the media tell the public the truth about the reasons the war was started.

So here goes.

The disinformation campaign the White House launched last weekend should leave no doubt that the war in Iraq was hatched well before 9/11 and is part of a broader strategy to remake the entire Middle East into a so-called Pax Americana, a blueprint drafted by hardcore neoconservatives years ago that called for overthrowing Middle East dictators and installing U.S. approved governments in the region.

It’s entirely likely that the administration will attempt to sell Congress and the public another war in the near future, the next likely target being Iran. How else should we interpret the following statement Bush made in Idaho Monday, during a speech he made to Veterans of Foreign Wars?

“The third part of our strategy in the war on terror is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East,” Bush said.

As public support for the Iraq war erodes, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have taken their propaganda campaign on the road, once again linking the war in Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in hopes that the administration can dramatically change perception of the military conflict in Iraq, even though a half-dozen federal investigations have concluded that Iraq played no role in 9/11.

Scoop (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00155.htm)

The term 'the broader Middle East' usually refers to Iran. Clearly, this statement by W is an indication that the administration is already beyond the planning stages of a Iranian military campaign.

[whottt]

It's good to see W hadn't given up on the idea of kicking the shit out of Iran....

But you need to get your head out of the blogs Nbadan and go see the big Iran news that came out today...

You'd probably have to go to a legitmate news site to find it though...I can direct you to one if you don't know of any.

[cecil collins]

Fox News...pfffft.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Clearly, this statement by W is an indication that the administration is already beyond the planning stages of a Iranian military campaign.

Clearly. :lol

[Nbadan]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/homepage/20050823_bullshit.jpg
Bill Moyer, 73, wears a "Bullshit Protector" flap over his ear while President George W. Bush addresses the Veterans of Foreign Wars. (AP Photo/Douglas C. Pizac)

[gtownspur]

You are bunch of straight up dumbasses. When did bush ever say that this war was only about hunting down OSama. Didnt he say in 2002 that this war on terrorism was going to last beyond his own administration. This is a war of Idealogy, Bush has always said that. Grow up now and fucking get a clue. Bush's approval numbers have slipped and the press has printed nothing but negative news on iraq.

but guess what.
Even with the "supposed" failing economy...

Even with failing war support...

Even with rising hatred towards Bush from the left..

.... THe democrats have gained nothing from all this. their approval numbers have dipped as well. ANd they are not converting anything with their idealogy. The party is falling apart. Thats why Moveon.org is threatening sudden deat towards the DLC for adopting a more conservative approach to the war and other issues. The Democrats are worth dick in anything. There is hardly anymore FDR and Jfk democrats who support strong military and The U.S's role as a superpower. Instead democrats want the U.N. to be sovereign over the Constitution and for us to lose to rogue regimes and terrorist. Just face it NBADAN, and all you other chickenshits, your side is losing even in the midst of bad press for YOur PRESIDENT! 75% of americans dont want to become like messed up Europe. They dont want us to cater towards islamo facism, and they sure as hell dont believe Iran should develop nucleur weapons. Even Chirac, your lefty Pimp, agrees that we should do something about Iran. But you cock sucks never seem to amaze every one.

You have never supported anyone outside of Kim jong, Chavez, Castro, Stalin, Gorbachev, Ho chi Minh, The murderous CHineese regime and Osama bin laden.

Why dont you admit that you will cry and erect a shrine for Osama the day he is killed or captured.

and you wonder why people think your Un american.

[boutons]

"Didnt he say in 2002 that this war on terrorism was going to last beyond his own administration."

I don't remember, pre-War, any negative talk about being in Iraq for a LONG time. Repugs, like most politicians, will NEVER talk straight up. What I do remember is "slam dunk", Iraqis would welcome USA with open arms, as liberators, etc, etc. ie, Iraq, with US's incredible superior "shock and awe" would be quick, easy, and the Iraqis would be freed from Saddam (aka cakewalk). This impression was just a part of the entire selling of the bogus war.

Nowhere, pre-War, do I remember that the Repugs saying that would be in Iraq open-ended for many years with NO EXIT STRATEGY, waste 2000+ US lives, and 20K maimed. And the silly "Mission Accomplished" flyboy with padded crotch fake skit certainly re-inforced the idea the Iraq war's "major combat operations" were over.

The Repug tune changed months after the Flyboy skit, when Americans were dying and Iraq was clearly unpacified and out of control. THEN the Repugs started talking about how long the war on terror would be. The problem with that is, Iraq was not playing the jihadi game. Iraq was secular, Saddam's playpen, with no contact with al Quaida.

A key Repug lie is putting Saddam in the same terrorist boat with al Quaida. PURE BS.

Repugs do not equal USA

Iraq war does not equal USA

Dissenting, objecting against Repugs and Iraq war is not trashing America. We heard all THAT shit in 60's from the same wrap-myself-in-the-flag assholes shouting "my country, right or wrong". BS then, BS now. The Repugs are wrong, the Iraq war is wrong, the USA is OK.

The people who are against this bogus war and the asshole Repugs who started are in fact more concerned about the troops than the Repugs. Without this bogus war, 2000 more US miliatary and 1000's of mamed would be alive and healthy. The Repugs are drenched in the wated blood of the wasted US military.