Letters to the Editor
-
Historical memory
Our corporate press corps wakes up in a new world every day, remembering nothing from the day before -- much less the previous six years.
There is no truth in Pravda, and no news in Izvestia.
-
At least two years ago
I was standing in a shoe store near the University of Texas and overheard a military recruiter telling a young man that if he joined, he didn't need to worry about going to Iraq because troops would begin coming home by the end of the year and not to believe any of the "endless war bs." What a snake.
-
It's a gift!
Neocons and their enablers have a remarkable talent for talking out of both sides of their faces (plus their asses) at the same time. They put even the greatest ventriloquists to shame.
-
Cautionary Folk Tale Needed!
Perhaps the public would be better equipped to understand what's really going on if there was a story about "The Boy Who DIDN'T Cry Wolf".
Then again, the lesson of "The Emperor's New Clothes" has had a negligible prophylactic effect-- why, just the other day "Dean" Broder was commenting on the striking effect of the ermine lapel trim showcasing the imperial bosom.
-
Short attention span theater....
Has anyone done any empirical research on the institutional memory of the American public? Is there any scientific evidence that we collectively are really this stupid? Is there any basis for the strategy or is this yet another example of wishful thinking taking the place of considered judgment?
These aree not rhetorical questions. I really want to know.
-
This is the result of failed independent journalism
There is no longer credibility of the conflated entertainment/news industry. Everything is considered fiction. Everything is packaged for sensation, and there is no real news value. Viewers aren't stupid. They have just tuned out all of the noise. The collective memory lasts about three days - isn't that the same as a "news cycle"?
-
One would think....
that the factions at war would figure out, less violence equals fewer Americans. But I guess Muslims just aren't that smart.
-
Speaking of folks who just "aren't that smart..."
Shitter242 is guzzling his morning Kool-Aid with a side of bigotry.
-
Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin
The Ministry of Truth, having writ, moves on. Stay tuned for further updates.
-
Let's do the time warp again...
"War supporters give the same false assurances over and over, often verbatim, and the press trumpets them each time."
It's like 2002 all over again. And '03, and '04. 2005 wasn't a good year either.
Let us never speak of 2006 ever again.
-
@shooter242
One would think that the factions at war would figure out, less violence equals fewer Americans. But I guess Muslims just aren't that smart.
One would think that if one completely missed the point of the post, and one believed himself smarter than everyone else despite making public failures of logic daily, and one ignored the huge permanent bases we've built in Iraq, and the constant escalation of rhetoric from America, and the many American economic interests we've moved in, and if one was so dishonest to pretend ANY of this had ANYthing to do with "democracy building".
We'll leave Iraq when it becomes unprofitable for the people making money on it, just like everything else in life. The Iraqis are smart enough to figure that out, I wouldn't presume (*ahem*) to guess if they would actually adopt that view as part of an overall strategy.
-
Trust me.....
The check is in the mail. Really! Honest!
-
Bill Murray and Edna St. Vincent Millay can weep/laugh together
Brings to mind the movie Groundhog Day and the poet
Edna St Vinvent Millay:
"Life isn't one damn thing after another, it's the same damn thing over and over again."
-
repetitiously
The first line of the article has a spelling error : reptitiously should be repetitiously.
-
The truth is, we'll leave when the last drop of Iraq's oil is gone....
... but since this obvious fact is unflattering to our nation and its greedy, lying, conniving politicians of both parties, the press will---- (surprise!) completely ignore it.
Read it and weep:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052607Z.shtml
And lest our wingnut brethren dismiss this as commie propaganda, please note that [author] "Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq."
-
I believe they are planning troop reductions in Iraq
I thing the ruse is getting people to believe that troop reductions in Iraq means the troops will come home. I believe they will be in Iran.
-
Supersurge
So the surge has worked well enough already to allow us to begin speaking of withdrawl. That's impressive. The US has invented an entirely new standard for counterinsurgency ops. Way to go, boys!
-
Remember this from a few days ago?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/22/MNG7QPV65N1.DTL
That's the report of the imminent troop increase, the so-called second surge. And now this? So which is it? More troops or less? Bait and switch, maybe? An attempt at confusion? Did their Iran plans get out in front of them and this is their attempt to muddy the waters?
Whatever the reason, it appears as if a three day news cycle IS effective, even for those of us paying close attention.
-
Buried Lede
I think the article, and also this post miss something very important.
Several administration officials said they hoped that if such a reduction were under way in the midst of the presidential campaign, it would shift the debate from whether American forces should be pulled out by a specific deadline — the current argument consuming Washington — to what kind of long-term presence the United States should have in Iraq.
“It stems from a recognition that the current level of forces aren’t sustainable in Iraq, they aren’t sustainable in the region, and they will be increasingly unsustainable here at home,” said one administration official who has taken part in the closed-door discussions.
[snip]
The officials cautioned that no firm plans have emerged from the discussions. But they said the proposals being developed envision a far smaller but long-term American presence, centering on three or four large bases around Iraq. Mr. Bush has told recent visitors to the White House that he was seeking a model similar to the American presence in South Korea.
This is something of a hobbyhorse of mine, because I believe this plan for permanent occupation of Iraq has been in place from the beginning, and is simply not discussed by politicians or the media. It leads me to question the honesty of the Democratic candidates, especially those who are sitting Senators who have voted for appropriations to construct these permanent bases and the attendant 1000 person "embassy" that will be in charge in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
But now we are hearing, from the usual shadowy "officials" that the plan in "sovereign" Iraq is a permanent occupation. Those bases, as reported by George Packer and others represent a presence of about 50,000 soldiers.
Is there any way that this occupation would have public support, if spoken about frankly? Is there any question that the idea of a "sovereign" Iraq is as thin a tissue of lies as can be imagined? Why wasn't this plan mentioned in any of the President's major speeches and his press briefings?
And, why oh why (channeling Brad DeLong) is there absolutely no discussion of these plans? Anywhere?