Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein to convince their people...

starwheel

As I recall, Saddam Hussein didn't convince the Iraqui people, as a whole of much. He had a few followers, maybe in the low thousands, who were tribaly and politically connected with him and benefitted from his rule, there was a well paid and treated cohort of elite soldiers (The Republican Guard- ironic, ain't it) and most of the population was coerced by fear into cooperating, to some extent. If you Google, you can find the Pew reports which indicated that the populace of Iraq was still substantially Pro-American (democracy, whiskey, sexy) until well into the occupation.

Any influence Saddam had was wiped out almost immediately upon invasion; remember, the Army simply downed tools and went home, when asked. I would hardly call that a cult of personality comparable to the worship of Hitler in Nazi Germany.

But, having run out of viable opponents in the War on Iraq, our good 'ol American know-how and get-'er-done enabled us to make enemies out of pratically the entire population. Goddamnit, no other country can accomplish someth9ing like that, with as little effort. Why, some other sociolist liberal commie type countries would have tried to build on the support which was there for them! Shocking, but true! But America isn't like that, thank God! We know how to brutalise an entire country into hating us and aproving of attacks on us, in record time! Match that, France! (Hell, they're probably too busy making and eating fine cheese and wine, and working on their infrastructure.)

Look, it's been six years since 9-11-01. And a whole lot of things have happened. Can we stop talking about the "inevitable" attack.

Remember the "inevitable" attack by the Soviet Union.

The media, and the Republicans, keep talking about the "inevitable attack", But can anyone here give me any substantial reason why a terrorist attack is "inevitable"?

Is it just cause Moslems are eeevvull?

Cause that seems top be the bulk of the reasoning behind the "inevitable" attack- which never seems to come.

I won't be scared by "inevitable" attacks. It's bullshit.

read this interview (the exigencies of transcription not withstanding, if any of those are the words I want.) and couldn't help thinking "What a sad, sad man this Dodd is. Does he know at all what's going on?"

Yes Mr. Dodd, you go ahead and make the Constitution an issue. Everybody loves the Constitution. Liberals and conservatives. Yeah, that's the ticket, Constitution, yeah.

"can be conferred by other means, so long as all participants agree to respect those means..."

Looks like it's back to the guns.

and one word only to describe the foreign policy "thinking" as it is presented to Americans on the news: melodrama!

In every case, no matter what the issue, the veroties and unities of melodrama are strictly adhered to.

And since this melodrama of foreign policy is of a piece with the melodrama which makes up American entertainment (the watching of which forms the bulk of the experiential process by which Americans comprehend the world, and each other), a seamless world of melodramatic nonsense is created. That's all there is to it.

Accusing the foreign policy "thinkers" of doing anything than trying to write a script for a "Die Hard Saving Private Ryan" movie is to give them much more credit than they deserve.

You might not agree, but every post from the trolls here is powerful evidence for my contention.

Without a doubt, the hardest working man in the business!

Works hard to get it right, and works hard to write it right!

If there was still such a thing as editors (instead of managers) for written publications, this blog would be in national syndication.

But instead we get assholes telling us "we need another 9-11".

are favorables neccessarily a very good indicator of which party will "have its way".

Short answer: No.

When you can tailor the news, the interviews, even the melodramatic fictional shows ("based on a true story") and the polls to your specifications, what chance do facts have?

I am hoping the chatter about re-imposing the draft will at least make Americans somewhat curious about why their children may be impressed. But I doubt it. After all, the draft is believed to distribute the burden of military service fairly.

What good American is against that?

Here's a quick schematic of the next election: The Republicans are against terror, the Democrats, well, not so much. Are you "for" terror? Of course you're not, so vote Repub.

in this country say enough is enough? Impeachment proceedings should begin immediately."

If Bush and/or Cheney is impeached more than six months away from the election that's more than enough time for the MSM to trnsform their administration into a Golden Age which we must return to by electing a Republican. If the impeachment allows the US time to ameliorate some of the disasters caused by the Bush administration, every one of those adjustments will be interpreted as a "defeat" for the US. And every social or economic debacle, the fuse of which was lit by Bush, which blows up in our faces will be the Democrats fault.

If the American electorate is face-to-face with the disaster which is Bush/Cheney/neocons/theocrats/ RWA administration they might, just might, vote in their real interests, maybe.

Maybe.

Sounds to me like he was cordially saying 'Screw you Glenn, you think the facts are gonna have any bearing on the propaganda I just catapulted? Keep dreaming, son?'

Cordial, my ass! He was contemptuous. Oh, he probably thought you were "praising him with faint damns"

When I went bald my wife had all of her follicles removed and donated them to my scalp. Now I have a beautiful head of genuine hair, and she's gotten into scarves and hats. Oh, people ask questions, but we just tell 'em she's got leukemia.

That's what a real "girlfriend" would do, and you should accept nothing less from yours!