What's this?!?!?!?

The Bush Administration secretly paying to have pro-war, pro-U.S. stories published?!?!?!?

Why, i'm SHOCKED, I tell you!!!.....shocked!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/224.html

It turns out that the Bush administration has been secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to plant pro-U.S. stories. According to the Los Angeles Times, (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar30nov30,0,5638790.story) "The articles, written by U.S. military 'information operations' troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor."

Who would have thought it? I mean, it's not like the Bush administration EVER did anything similar on the home front, is it?

Well... apart from Armstrong Williams. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm

And Maggie Gallagher. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=327897

And Michael McManus. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002164234_watch29.html

And there was that incident with the fake news reports and the actors. (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1170534,00.html) But hey, it's not like the Bush administration was breaking the law.

What's that - they were? http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001219925

Oh.

But as the Washington Post pointed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101520.html) out in an editorial last week, "In hindsight, maybe it shouldn't be surprising that the Pentagon has been secretly paying Iraqi journalists and news organizations to write and run positive stories about the war. ... But saying it was predictable makes it no less loathsome and damaging to find that the Bush administration has treated the Iraqi press, the Iraqi people and the very idea of Iraqi democracy with even greater contempt."

That's right folks - it appears that "freedom and democracy" isn't really turning out to be much of a reason for invading Iraq either. So... we're not in Iraq because they had ties to Al Qaeda, we're not there because they had weapons of mass destruction, we're not there because Saddam Hussein was going to attack America, and we're not there to bring them freedom and democracy.

But hey, we can't leave. That would be 'cutting and running". And if there's one thing more important than the lives of U.S. soldiers, it's the Bush administration not having to admit that they made a mistake.

The ironic part is that the moveon.org crowd and the mainstream media will print anti-U.S., anti-war, pro-terrorist news stories for free. Dammit.

Well, seeing as they are not the US Government inflicting propaganda on another country, I think that would be okay.

The U.S. government has every right in the world to spread any news they wish, what they can't do is squelch other sources of news, dammit.

The U.S. government has every right in the world to spread any news they wish,

Even blatantly false and self-serving information?

OK let me see, we pay newspapers to print false stories? and this is news to the LA Times? This is a paper that has paid informants to create stories for 30 plus years.

It is called psyops and works against the enemy. I am shocked to see that some people in the world are so naive as to believe everything they read. I assume that war is going better than reported on CNN and worse than reported by Rumsfeld.

War is not pretty and any weapon is acceptable, they only damage done is that a few people in this country scream war crimes.

Which is worse, Hussein executing 300k for voting against him and such or Bush paying to tell people in Iraq that things are going well?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran

Which is worse, Hussein executing 300k for voting against him and such or Bush paying to tell people in Iraq that things are going well?

"Worse" is Saddam killing those people with weapons sold to him by the U.S., that Reagan/Bush approved the sale of, that the U.S. did not condemn Saddam for at the time he was doing it.

NOW, of course, that the Rightwing faction wants an excuse to go into Iraq, Saddam suddenly becomes this "monster who killed 300 thousand people!".

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The ironic part is that the moveon.org crowd and the mainstream media will print anti-U.S., anti-war, pro-terrorist news stories for free. Dammit.

I've asked this before a dozen times on these boards, with no results, but I'll keep trying.

Could you please provide your evidence here on these boards of the news reports in the mainstream Media in the US that are **pro-terrorist**......??

Barring that, I guess you could just admit that you're full of shit.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Which is worse, Hussein executing 300k for voting against him and such or Bush paying to tell people in Iraq that things are going well?

I'd say they were both unacceptable.

I may have missed it .......but ......I've yet to see one newspapers name ....that the military has been alleged to have paid.

In any event ........don't people pay to have information dispersed ......???

If a newspaper would accepts funds to have news printed .....isn't that an ethical problem of the newspaper and not of the person trying to disseminate the information ......??


Slim

Originally posted by slim
If a newspaper would accepts funds to have news printed .....isn't that an ethical problem of the newspaper and not of the person trying to disseminate the information ......??


Slim

It would be if the newspapers were aware they were paying for stories supplied to them by the US government.

From the article FT linked to:

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.

If this is on the up-and-up, why hide your identity when peddling the stories?

Well ...who did they pay .....the public relations firm .........??? ........orrrrrrrrr ........the newspaper.

This whole story sounds like the American press is gaming this thing. Only limited information is being printed.


Slim

so pagan, are you implying that there are no good news storys available to print and we have to make them up? I am sure that somewhere in Iraq, at some point, there was a good news story. The problem is that in the media good news storys dont sell papers. If there are good news storys they are located in the Living section 5 sections back, and they are usually feel good storys about lesbians adopting a kid agaisnt all odds or something along those lines. Unless you are saying they are fabricating storys out of thin air, which I havent seen anyone say, what is wrong with trying to get a little good news out there? We could always resort to dropping leaflets you know.

Don't forget the illegal aliens who ....are struggling ............in their new found America ...........ohhh .....sorry ...that is on page 1.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
If a newspaper would accepts funds to have news printed .....isn't that an ethical problem of the newspaper and not of the person trying to disseminate the information ......??That's right, Slim. And prostitution isn't the fault of innocent Johns.

I don't get your analogy ...splain to me Willis ..........*S*.


Slim

Slim

The ethical problem does not lie solely with the newspaper. Is that so hard to comprehend?

Originally posted by slim
Well ...who did they pay .....the public relations firm .........??? ........orrrrrrrrr ........the newspaper.
Slim

Wow.

For the second time in this thread alone, the thrust of the story is completely missed by you.

Reading comprehension is not exactly your long suit.

Originally posted by Travh20
If there are good news storys they are located in the Living section 5 sections back, and they are usually feel good storys about lesbians adopting a kid agaisnt all odds or something along those lines.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In the typical infantile fashion we have all come to expect, your rebuttal takes the form of ---"Well, so what?!?!.....they're all just a bunch of do-gooders who want to highlight lesbians and poor people and other weird unAmerican stuff all the time!!

Compared to you, Archie Bunker was an enlightened, intelligent person.

Name me a newspaper that was paid.......???


Slim

And to reply to sedan:

Oh sedan ...........you mean you made a mistake ......tsk ..tsk ...tsk .......*L*. I guess only you are allowed to make a mistake ...........or were you trying to color me as something else ........??? I think misspelling is less of a crime .......*L*

Well ...besides trying to make a tiny spellchecker funny .....yes .........I am serious ..............I don't think it is a good analogy.

First of all .............I have not blamed either party ...even though Mr Spellchecker implied I did.

Second .................prostitution is a crime ..........under the law ....I don't think what this article describes ....even if it is true (I've yet to see a newspaper name that was paid to print an article) ..............is a crime.

Third .............I am not sure what Mr Spellchecker is implying ....is he saying what the article describes the defense department as doing (even if it is true) ..is unethical ........?? I certainly don't think what the defense department did is unethical. I would not have a military that did not try to break the enemy .......and .........prevail in the war of ideas effecting the battlefield.

Or ..is he saying it is immoral ......like prostitution.........???


Slim

Originally posted by Freethinker
"Worse" is Saddam killing those people with weapons sold to him by the U.S., that Reagan/Bush approved the sale of, that the U.S. did not condemn Saddam for at the time he was doing it.

NOW, of course, that the Rightwing faction wants an excuse to go into Iraq, Saddam suddenly becomes this "monster who killed 300 thousand people!".

I can agree to a point, Iran at the time was the worse of two evils, so by equiping Saddams Armies to defeat Iran we didnt commit our military. But during that conflict we did somethings that are kind of disturbing, like trading arms for hostages, and aiding Iraq in the war against Iran. But like has been said many times the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Diplomacy is a multiheaded monster that can bite you at any moment.
Saddam became our enemy full time when he attacked the USS Starke.
But playing psyops will save lives, lets not forget a newspaper article never killed anyone much less 300k.

Just MHO

Originally posted by slim
Name me a newspaper that was paid.......???Slim

Ok.

The Baghdad-based newspaper Al Mutamar was paid.

Now, no doubt we will be treated to yet another demonstration of your --- "Uuuuuhhh, i dont get it. Whut about it, and why are we supposed to care?!?!?" -- glaring inability to percieve what's wrong about it......or, for that matter, to percieve what's being said.

would you prefer we dropped leaflets? Here is how it works I guess: We pay Iraqi papers to run pro US stories and US papers pay people to run anti US stories. seriously, who cares? its called phsyops. perhaps you would like for nothing but gloom and doom 24/7 to push you agenda, but there are good stories out there freethinker, believe it or not. You will take your misplaced and opportunistic idealism with you to the grave.

Originally posted by Travh20
We pay Iraqi papers to run pro US stories and US papers pay people to run anti US stories.

Really?

I have yet to read a news story in a mainstream paper in the US that is "anti-US".

Maybe you could link to a few of those news stories in the US papers that are *anti-US* so as to provide evidence for your allegation.

While i'm at it, i'd also like (for the umpteenth time) to invite any of the rightwingers here (Darth being the last one to make such an allegation) to please provide your evidence here on these boards of the news reports in the mainstream Media in the US that are **pro-terrorist**......??

have you ever heard the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"?

I missed your link to this .............."The Baghdad-based newspaper Al Mutamar was paid. ".

Can you provide it .......plzzzzzzzzzzz.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
Well ...besides trying to make a tiny spellchecker funny .....yes .........I am serious ..............I don't think it is a good analogy.Of course it is a bad analogy (nearly all analogies are). I was just yanking your chain a little. Or to paraphrase 'Lennon', I was giving you enough rope with which to hang yourself.........I am not sure what Mr Spellchecker is implying ....is he saying what the article describes the defense department as doing (even if it is true) ..is unethical ........?? If our goal in Iraq is to bestow the gifts of democracy (including a free press) on the Iraqi people, then planting stories in their newspapers is unethical, not to mention counter-productive.

I didnt want to go here but I will.

Explain the difference between this and the Dan Rather fiasco with the Bush Papers? Nothing, the press has been and always will be manipulated. I would say the papers in question are at fault for accepting the money to print untrue stories.

I see stories in our papers that are hidden ads, the words paid advertisement are well hidden. I look at it this way if these stories give the people of a war torn country hope then whats the problem? A little hope amongst the death?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Explain the difference between this and the Dan Rather fiasco with the Bush Papers?The main difference is that the U.S. is not occupied by a foreign power, and that foreign power did not pay Dan Rather to air the story.I would say the papers in question are at fault for accepting the money to print untrue stories.First of all, I don't know if the stories are untrue. I can't find a report on their particulars, only that they are pro-U.S. and anti-insurgent. That being said, the Iraqi papers cannot take all the blame (or credit, for that matter) for stories that originated from U.S. sources. It takes two parties to make a contract, and any exchange of money is by definition a contract.

For me, it all comes back to whether or not it is ethical to plant any kind of story in another country's media, especially one that we occupy. Travh sees no difference between this and dropping leaflets. But leaflets are dropped into enemy-held territories, and the recipients know from whence they came. A planted story is different. There is an intent to deceive the reader even if the particulars of the story are true.. And just because our own media is manipulated that does not make it right for us to manipulate theirs. 'Journalistic integrity' is an oxymoron to be pursued, not dismissed.

Originally posted by slim
I missed your link to this .............."The Baghdad-based newspaper Al Mutamar was paid. ".

Can you provide it .......plzzzzzzzzzzz.


Slim

In FAR less time than it took you to type the above plea, you could have typed --**Baghdad newspaper Al Mutamar**-- into the Google News search engine and provided YOURSELF with a plethora of links.

Of course, when you DO finally stumble upon the link to what you seek, I will predict that you come back here and tell us all why that particular newspaper "doesn't count"......or why it "means nothing".....or some other fabricated excuse.

Originally posted by Travh20
so pagan, are you implying that there are no good news storys available to print and we have to make them up?

I'm saying that for whatever reason the government feels it has to place false news stories in foreign newspapers. Why would that be?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Explain the difference between this and the Dan Rather fiasco with the Bush Papers?

The involvement of the government is the difference.


Nothing, the press has been and always will be manipulated. I would say the papers in question are at fault for accepting the money to print untrue stories.

A. The fact that people have tried to manipulate the press in the past doesn't make this behavior acceptable.

B. Again, according to the article at the beginning of the thread, the newspapers were duped into running some of these stories by people posing as reporters. They didn't intentionally run false stories, they were tricked into doing so. They also didn't receive the money, the people posing as reporters did.


I see stories in our papers that are hidden ads, the words paid advertisement are well hidden.

We're not talking about hidden ads BV, this is about the deliberate misuse of the press to put forward a political agenda. If this is legitimate, why all the subterfuge?


I look at it this way if these stories give the people of a war torn country hope then whats the problem?

The problem? Do you want your news sources to be bought and paid for by the government?

If everything in Iraq is going well, why would it be neccessary to engage in deceptive tactics like this?

Fact check.org.

Travh20 and Darth;

I have yet to read a news story in a mainstream paper in the US that is "anti-US".

Maybe you could link to a few of those ""*anti-US* "" news stories in the mainstream Press that you constantly claim are out there, so as to provide evidence for your allegation.

While i'm at it, i'd also like (for the umpteenth time) to invite any of the rightwingers here (Darth being the last one to make such an allegation) to please provide your evidence here on these boards of the news reports in the mainstream Media in the US that are **pro-terrorist**.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I'm saying that for whatever reason the government feels it has to place false news stories in foreign newspapers. Why would that be?

so they are false? I heard they were "good news" storys. I am asking you, is a good news story form iraq automatically false?

Originally posted by Travh20
so they are false? I heard they were "good news" storys. I am asking you, is a good news story form iraq automatically false?

I shouldn't have included the word "false" in that statement. My bad.

Propaganda and bribery

The Bush administration will pay both at home and in Iraq for buying puff pieces in the media

By Peter Preston

12/05/05 "The Guardian" -- -- It seems such a tiny, insignificant thing. Why worry about planting a little propaganda and bribing a few journalists when your men in the field are dying day after day? "This is war," says the Pentagon. Yes indeed, adds the sonorous senator who chairs the armed services committee, "this is war". And in war, of course, anything goes (even including bombing al-Jazeera) because ... well, it's war, isn't it?

So two linked stories rise, then fade away. Maybe there was outrage last week when the LA Times reported that the department of defence had hired a Washington company called Lincoln Green to harvest phony tales of triumph written by US army personnel in Iraq - then, duly translated, feed them back to the "free" Baghdad press Donald Rumsfeld loves so much. Maybe eyebrows flickered when it emerged that some Iraqi reporters and editors are on America's payroll. Maybe the Arab world was still fuming over alleged threats to its favourite 24-hour news channel.

<snip>

more at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11218.htm

again, are these storys amde up or just storys that wont get published on thier own merits?

Originally posted by Travh20
again, are these storys amde up or just storys that wont get published on thier own merits?

I have seen no evidence that entirely fabricated stories are being published.

The point here is that the US leadership is being thororoughly dishonest in bribing these foreign reporters [and keeping it a secret] to print news stories that THEY approve of.

And if they will [as they have already proven] lie about the planting of news stories in Iraqi papers, is there anything they would NOT lie about?

Now. since I answered your question, I will pose one in return, for any rightwinger who'd like to comment.

It is being claimed here that the US papers are paying people to run anti-US stories.

I have yet to read a news story in a mainstream paper in the US that is "anti-US".

Maybe some of you could link to a few of those ""*anti-US* "" news stories in the mainstream Press, so as to provide evidence for that allegation.

While i'm at it, i'd also like (for the umpteenth time) to invite any of the rightwingers here (Darth being the last one to make such an allegation) to please provide your evidence here on these boards of the news reports in the mainstream Media in the US that are **pro-terrorist**.

I believe this one was printed in the Orlando Sentinel. I am double checking this. It is linked to another Sentinel story on Google.

The guy was acquitted on some counts ......even though he is on tape suggesting to operatives of Islamic Jihad ....the best ways to reorganize their group.

Sami Al-Arian Wins a Great Victory for Palestine

Category: Politics International
Posted Tue Dec 06,2005 4:37 PM Last Edited:

AMERICA'S DAILY BRIEFING: December 6, 2005

[Politicalgateway.com]

MIDDLE EAST EXPERT ANDY MARTIN PREDICTED SAMI AL-ARIAN ACQUITTAL


(NEW YORK)(December 6, 2005) I was the only observer to predict an acquittal in the Sami Al-Arian terror trial in Tampa. Well.

At a time when Sami Al-Arian was being abused by the United States of America, I stood shoulder to shoulder with Sami and called him "friend." On June 6th, 2005 I wrote a column entitled "Free Sami Al-Arian." I called the prosecution of Palestinians in U.S. Courts a travesty and predicted that Al-Arian would be acquitted. How right I was. (See politicalgateway.com for the column.)

Al-Arian's acquittal restores some of my faith in American justice. We had the Israeli government using a U. S. Court to prosecute innocent civilians seeking freedom for their people, and release from the yoke of Israeli oppression. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration supinely allowed Israel to use federal courts to intimidate and harass the Palestinian National movement.

Also ...the St. Petersberg Times printed a piece glamorizing the terror financier and strategist.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/08/Tampabay/Verdict_a__turning_po.shtml

Verdict a 'turning point' for Muslims


Print story Reuse or republish Subscribe to the Times
Sami Al-Arian trial coverage

Verdict a 'turning point' for Muslims
By BILL COATS, Times Staff Writer
Published December 8, 2005

All over Tampa Bay, word of Sami Al-Arian's acquittals spread from Muslim to Muslim.

The cell phone of Osama "Sam" Mustafa, a Palestinian-American from Riverview, chimed with the news at the Al-Aqsa Coffee House in Temple Terrace, where Mustafa was enjoying the flavored smoke of a "hookah" water pipe.

"He was the symbol of the Palestinian community here," Mustafa said. "We can hold our heads up high now."

Several leading area Muslims voiced a common theme Wednesday in the wake of Tuesday's verdicts: The Al-Arian case, like the Sept. 11 attacks before it, had cast all local Muslims under suspicion, imposing caution and worry on their psyches. Tuesday's verdicts - which included eight acquittals and nine mistrials for Al-Arian - restored a sense of freedom.

"A lot of people I saw yesterday, they were very patriotic," said Ahmed Bedier, local director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "It was kind of a turning point in the community."

"Since Sept. 11, this is the most significant event in the bay area that makes you feel that the system is working for Middle Eastern Americans," said Ahmed Abu-Hajar, 37, a Pinellas Park engineer visiting the Temple Terrace coffee shop. "I feel very proud to be part of this community."


Slim

Originally posted by slim
I believe this one was printed in the Orlando Sentinel. I am double checking this. It is linked to another Sentinel story on Google.

The guy was acquitted on some counts ......

Why you posted those two news stories, I do not know, but a few relevant points come to mind immediately.

You say he was **aquitted on some counts**......which is misleading, because he seemingly was not convicted on any of the counts.

Further, it's a bit hard to have a conversation about a case, when nowhere in any of the links does it say exactly what he was being charged WITH.

Lastly, you claim he is a "terror financier", yet a jury aquitted him (of whatever it was he was supposed to have done).

Why are we to take your word that he is a terror financier??

Do you have more knowledge of the case than everything that was presented to the jury??

How odd.

I've posted them because you have yet to see a pro-terrorist story in the main street press .............."provide your evidence here on these boards of the news reports in the mainstream Media in the US that are **pro-terrorist**.".

I provided two .....now whether the first one was reprinted in the Orlando Sentinel ....I am not positive of.

However ............read the lead story in the New York Times today (I don't have access to it on the puter) .......what was the reason for drudging up that story if it were not about uplifting the terrorist .......??


Slim

Why you posted those two news stories, I do not know]/quote]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by slim
I've posted them because you have yet to see a pro-terrorist story in the main street press .............."provide your evidence here on these boards of the news reports in the mainstream Media in the US that are **pro-terrorist**.".

I provided two .....now whether the first one was reprinted in the Orlando Sentinel ....I am not positive of.

What?!?!

You "provided two" stories?!?!?!

I cannot fathom how you would charaterize a story reporting that a man charged with ---something, I couldn't find out what the charge was against him--- was aquitted is evidence of a "pro-terrorist" story in the mainstream press...........!!!?!!

Again....WHAT was he standing trial for?

And doesn't the fact that he was aquitted mean he was found NOT guilty of committing whatever crime he WAS charged with?!?

How and why is the fact that an article saying this man was aquitted supposed to be regarded as evidence that the newspaper is printing "pro-terrorist" stories.....?!?

Explain that one to me, slim..



Originally posted by slim
However ............read the lead story in the New York Times today (I don't have access to it on the puter) .......what was the reason for drudging up that story if it were not about uplifting the terrorist .......??Slim

The challenge was for YOU --or any other Rightwinger-- to provide evidence for the allegation made here that pro-terrorist stories are being run by the US media.

You have not done so, as far as I can see.

You've presented your story.

Now please just point out to me exactly what you see in the article where the newspaper is taking the side of "terrorists".

Ok, slim.

I just did a bit of research on Sami Al-Arian.

DOCTOR Sami Al-Arian.

A professor at the University of Florida.

A man who was charged with 51 counts, and who was aquitted.

So......you locate ONE story, out of tens of thousands of stories in the mainstream Press in America, and claim the newspaper printing it is guilty of being "pro-terrorist"........when the truth of the matter is that the story you are touting as "pro-terrorism" is in fact about a man recently found to NOT be a terrorist at all.

Simply amazing.

The OfficalWire from Washington DC says of the matter---

[i]WASHINGTON, D.C. -- (OfficialWire) -- 12/09/05 -- The overwhelming majority of jurors wanted to acquit Al-Arian of all charges, but were blocked by a couple of hold-outs. "Of course, we hate terrorism," said one juror. "But the evidence making these guys terrorists just wasn't there."

You're laughable, slim.

They have him on tape ..........suggesting how .."Islamic Jihad" .........should organize their terrorist operation. And ......the guy is still being held .....only a number of charges have been dropped ...............because of some judges twisted concept of this mans rights ......there are other charges pending.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
They have him on tape ..........suggesting how .."Islamic Jihad" .........should organize their terrorist operation.

First, let's see a transcript of these tapes you claim exist and what was said on them.

Second.....even IF we were to asssume for the moment that the purported tapes DO exist, they were STILL not compelling enough to convince 12 non-Muslim American jurors that this guy is a terrorist!!!!!

Thirdly.....even IF everything you've claimed about this guy is true, it STILL does nothing to demonstrate that a mainstream Media source --i.e., a U.S. newspaper--- has printed an article that indicates that they are ***pro-terrorist***.

Your purported "proof" of a mainstream Media outlet being "pro-terrorist" fails in SO many goddamned ways it's hard to know where to begin.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by slim
the guy is still being held ..... ...............because of some judges twisted concept of this mans rights ......[/quote[

Ok.

Let's see your proof that this supposed "terrorist" was freed soley due to the ""twisted concept of this man's rights"" on the part of "some judges".

I defy you to provide the scantest bit of evidence to support that allegation.

And even IF you WERE able to somehow prove it (which you are not) , you would STILL have not in the slightest degree demonstrated that U.S. newspapers are publishing **pro-terrorist** articles.

"U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press."

What's bizarre? The whole media of USA are doing the same way. When they want to start a war, most Americans get the "WMD" and "Imminent threat from Iraq" from the "information operation" workshop of government. Despite the reality that Iraq was so weak a country after it was defeated in 1st Gulf war and after more than ten years' sanction.

They even believe the mice is a threat to a cat. That's the strength of propaganda. It's amazing people are still so ignorant even after the "WMD" trick and the two rigged president election.

What happens in Iraq has been applied on US already. It's ridiculous people are so shock at this news. They themselves have been enjoying this "freedom" already.

Our civil liberties went down the potty when they started the unwinnable war on drugs.
What is our exit strategy for the war on drugs? Does anyone know? Do our fearless leaders know?
Next year and in '08, vote out anyone who supports this disaster!Your country and your freedom are at stake!