Pentagon Propaganda
By Larry Johnson on May 4, 2008 at 1:43 PM in Current Affairs, DoD, Iraq
Want to take a walk down memory lane? Here’s a copy of an email from July 2004 that illustrates the Pentagon’s effort to shape U.S. public opinion about Iraq using a select group of military analysts to manipulate public opinion. Pat Lang and I wrote about this two years ago. The New York Times recently was “shocked” to discover that there was gambling going on in the casino. It is tough to have a free society when the media is so sloppy, so compliant, and so spineless. So here is one of the typical sets of briefing materials provided to the select group of “approved” former military officers who were helping sell the war. (I was not part of the group, but won’t tell how I got a copy of this.)
From: Military-Analysts List [mailto:MILITARY-ANALYSTS-L@DTIC.MIL]On
Behalf Of Murphy, Margaret, OASD-PA
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:05 PM
To: MILITARY-ANALYSTS-L@DTIC.MIL
Subject: DoD Talking Points - SecDef Interviews GWOT, IraqAttached are talking points from the Department of Defense Office of Public Affairs and two news articles.
<
> <
> <
> Following are highlights from recent media interviews of Secretary Rumsfeld.
Measuring Progress in the Global War on Terror
* The Coalition is making progress in the Global War on Terror.
* More than 80 nations have joined the Global War on Terror.These Coalition nations are putting pressure on the terrorists by:
* Sharing intelligence.
* Putting pressure on bank accounts and making it more difficult to move money.
* Making it harder for terrorists to recruit people and retain them.
* Complicating terrorists’ ability to communicate with each other and move between countries.
* The Coalition has brought down the Abdul Qadeer Khan network.
* The network was trading in nuclear materials and technologies.
* Khan was the father of Pakistan’s gas centrifuge program. He was removed from his post as advisor to Pakistan’s prime minister for providing nuclear technology, components and equipment to Iran,
Libya and North Korea.
* Libya has come forward and decided to forego weapons of mass destruction.America Is Safer
* America is safer today than it was on Sept. 11, 2001.
* Terrorists have been captured and killed and their cells have been disrupted.
* Forty-six of the 55 most wanted in Iraq - including Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay — have been captured or killed.
* Close to two-thirds of known senior al-Qaeda operatives have been captured or killed.
* Thousands of terrorists and regime remnants in Iraq and Afghanistan have been hunted down, and terrorist cells on most continents have been disrupted.
* Even before Sept. 11, plans were underway to transform the Department of Defense from a post-Cold War department to a 21st century department to better face new threats.
* The Department has moved from a “threat-based” to a “capabilities-based” approach to defense planning. This means not just focusing on who might threaten the United States and where and when, but
also how we might be threatened and what capabilities are needed to deter and defend against those threats.
* The attacks on Sept. 11 prove the urgent need to transform the Department so it is better arranged for the threats and difficulties of the new century.Troop Strength and Length of Stay in Iraq
* The date for bringing home U.S. forces is not calibrated to a calendar, it is calibrated to the circumstances on the ground and what the security situation is.
* If the situation in Iraq deteriorates because the Ba’athists and former Saddam elements become more desperate to stop representative government before the elections in Iraq, the Department will react
appropriately.
* If the situation in Iraq improves and the number of forces could be reduced, the Department will also consider that alternative.To read transcripts of the Secretary’s July 16 interviews, go to transcript
section of Defenselink.mil (link)
Even before the war broke out, we were in the street chanting “No War,” “No Occupation.” We knew all along that this war all bogus.
Whoa! Whoa! Slow DOWN!!
I’m still back on “Stomp” (for crying out loud)
You all are a prolific bunch aren’t cha?
LOL MANNNNnnn!
Give us mere mortals a second or two puhleaseeee?
Dank U
Caught up. Wow, what a week (month) and finally we got to vote in NC. More to vote Tues. But MOST of us are done and waiting for the final count. IF it’s not tied it will be close.
And GO HOOSIERS I hear she’s up by 5 at least.
Larry, how come your site now comes up with errors when on it and link to sites do not post, aside from youtube, someone hacking your site again?
I was shocked that the Times was shocked about the Pentagon’s propaganda and wondered if Colonel Lang would comment on it. Goebbels had nothing on Bush’s “PR” machine.
Except a minimal level of competence.
Who the hell mimics a LOSER?
Rove, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Axelrod, other losers…
I never believed in this invasion from it’s horrible inception. I find it hard to believe that anyone is shocked that the Pentagon was using propaganda to further this wretched “war”. What I find reprehensible is the fact that these retired individuals (finding it hard to give them a worthy title) felt it OK to lie on TV just so that they could have access. How pathetic is that. It is disgusting and outrageous. The men have tarnished everything they claim to have fought or served for. It is not patriotic to lie and deceive; which leads to so much corruption and death. OUTRAGEOUS!
How were those generals any different from the greater population now polluting the MSM, or business, or politics, the weak narcissists?
Compare them to Larry Wilkerson, or the brave officers who spoke out against the war, after it became clear it was nothing more than a failed propaganda attempt (most had no reason to doubt the CIC, trust is very important,I do not fault them). I wonder if they, or Rove thought Iraq would be similar to Grenada, remember that one? Or maybe it was Cheney’s attempt to run it like Gulf one, but this time, with morons, kind of like Obama’s third string of former Clinton supporters, this war was run by Bush I’s fifth stringers, and men even more DUMB.
(Not the military, necessarily, but the civilian Pentagon, and others).
They are THAT delusional, THAT dumb.
(And people threaten to register republican, I have to laugh, just tattoo “fucking moron” on your forehead now, save the time, remember what these idiots did, how they think…)
The good news?
How many people in the military stood up to Bush and Cheney, and their insipid clumsy attempt to undermine the Constitution, evidenced by Cheney’s failure to effect any permanent change, the complete failure of his total agenda?
What did Powell say, soldiers vote with their feet?
We might not see protests on the steps of the capitol, but other than the usual suspects, I would think Cheney met a tremendous level of non cooperation, a spanner in the works.
Which reminds me, I was thinking the other day of Mike Spann, right, the name of the CIA agent murdered in Afghanistan?
I don’t know what brought it up…
totally agree; just commenting on these particular folks since it’s the subject. beleive me, i do not trust one person who spoke out on invasion or speaks of it now as a positive move.
It’s a crock and a clusterf**k. You could smell Mendacity the other side of Bab El-Mandeb.
And, I get to say this because I’ve been twice (OIF 1.0 and 3.0) and my idiot kid twice. So save me the, “You don’t support our troops,” chum, Chum.
Anyone who thinks this war is a great fucking idea and who is NOT in uniform and Deployed can kiss my Decorated, four war ass.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the White House.
EVER.
You know, you let a stupid PR guy bamboozle the public, you get guys who start wars in Iraq, with the expected catastrophic consequence.
You want the country run and maintained like a superpower?
Vote Clinton.
Period.
“You want the country run and maintained like a superpower?
“Vote Clinton.”
I, for one, do NOT want the country run and maintained like a superpower. I, for one, do not want a president who thinks it is appropriate to obliterate entire countries (and today, it seems, she confirmed that it was not just “tough talk”, but that she meant it). I, for one, want the country run and maintained to behave decently and normally in the world. Therefore, I will NOT “vote Clinton”.
Nice to have you back, S!
I do believe that Bushie is going to strike some limited “Iranian-controlled assets” (possibly camps) prior to the Election for the benefit of McCain and the GOP.
Screwing with the Persians just for a Feel-Good is poor, poor policy.
Who’s next?
Brunei?
Despite their public rhetoric since 1978 or so, they have not been antithetical to most Western objectives in our recent past.
Like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, US/Anglo/French petro interests haven’t done a lot for the place.
Iranians are NOT Arabs, and they’re smart enough to crank out more than a million cars and trucks every year.
Why piss them off?
Hi, Shirin. I cited your words from e-mail about As-Sadr in my piece about the 5th year of USA occupation. I hope it is OK, I could not get you permission.
I wonder what about TODAY Pentagon (CIA, Bush, Capitol)propaganda about Iran, which Clinton happily repeats
And I also wonder ,by the way, is Clinton going to murder all 60 000 Iranian Jews as well? After all, they belong to the same Iran.
Yes yes I’m sure she will, you can actually purchase a nuclear fallout umbrella, though, via amazon.com.
Might help with the post bomb radiation, and such.
I hear they come in colors, too, neon pink being very popular for the chick crowd.
If they’re out of stock, just google it.
Snark…cmon, show me some brains, toto…
Yes, sure, very funny, esp. because I am an Israeli Jew. I guess to be a citizen of the ONLY state which used A-bomb (on civilians, as usual) is a great school of humor. I guess that Iranians are less able to laugh at Clinton’s jokes, after what USA did to Iraq (as well after BS about WMD). Iranians could really be afraid, even though USA was once such a great friend of Iranian Shah (the torturer one), putting him in place of a democratic secular government
Now, who wants a joke or two about 9/11? I know some REALLY funny ones
Are you being realistic?
No, you’re not.
Please, take a deep breath, and reevaluate your situation.
Do you think Clinton would start a nuclear war?
No.
Is the US so besotted it would allow an amateurish nuclear war to go forward?
No.
You’re fear mongering.
Stop it.
USA DID use A-bomb once. And providing Iran has NOT a-bomb, USA is VERY capable to commit even MORE war crimes against them without much fear of retaliation. After all, in Iraq alone (with support of both Clinton and Obama) they murder more than million Iraqis.
So if someboby IS mongering, it is Clinton (and Obama) and goon-hearted liberal Americans command ME to stop. Why do you NOT command Bush, Clinton and Obama to stop?
In light of the recent revelations about Obama, and Wright, and Farrakhan, and Pakistan, Khan’s relationship with Libya is striking.
I wonder if Brewster Jennings was investigating Libya at any point, as they did investigate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, certainly Khan was involved, I wonder if anything on the Sybil Edmonds tapes relates back to this?
And Auchi does deal in illegal arms sales, right, dealing with Libya, I wonder if he deals with Pakistan, too, or Syria?
Wow - a small oasis in the desert of anti-Obamatude and Hillary hagiography - is this my “welcome back to the USA” present?!
Seriously, it seems the NYT was the last to know that the Bush regime was planting retired military as ventriloquists’ dummies in the U.S. media - duhhhhhh! But the article IS worthwhile as well-researched, somewhat detailed documentation of yet another method of Bushite deception.
Off-topic ramble follows:
I’ve been back in the U.S. for about 24 hours now. Last night when I got to my house it looked familiar, but somehow I did not quite recognize it, except for my animals, and my rose garden, which was coming out of the just-pruned stage when I left and is now blooming up a storm (and weedy as hell - I don’t let anyone else touch it). This morning when I woke up I did not recognize my bedroom - thought I was still in Syria, and managed for a few happy, sleepy moments to believe my bedroom looked Syrian. Depressed and sad all day, missing Syria, and friends, and hearing and speaking Arabic, and the sights, sounds, smells.
Larry, would LOVE to hear your take on the recent attempt to amplify the “Syria is a looming nuclear threat” bullshit. Their lies just get more and more “out there”, don’t they? Maybe - MAYBE - when Hafedh Al Asad was President-for-life, and MAYBE if “Basil-the-Shaheed” had not martyred himself out of being President by rolling over his car without a seatbelt on, the thought of “going nuclear” might have crossed their minds from time to time, so at least they would have been guilty of evil thoughts. But with Bashar in the Presidential Palace?! Come ON!!!
And is there any single idiot left in the world who believes a word that comes out of the mouths of anyone in the Bush regime?!
>>> And is there any single idiot left in the world who believes a word that comes out of the mouths of anyone in the Bush regime?!
Probably somewhere near 20-24% of the population of this country.
And, they Breed, drive and own guns un-restrictedly.
Pretty scary, huh?
Oh, Shirin.
LOL.
How was Syria?
Syria was great, thanks. I didn’t want to leave, and I can’t wait to go back.
Hmmm, it is often discussed among political science scholars the problem Americans have calling their country superpower/empire. A lot has to do with the unique American “idealism” (IMO, a beloved sentiment, and much cherished.) However, no matter the popular spin, US has been, is and will be (for a while) a superpower, empire, if you will, and act accordingly. The image needs some polishing (after the Bush disastrous years) but that aside, the status will not change, and should not.
Obliterate = deterrence = balance of power in ME. I’m not going to retype again the same point. A few days ago I was discussing it here with Justin, an Obama supporter.
PS: To avoid confusion “obliterate” = threat to use force if Israel is attacked. Hence, the bottom line is to deter an attack, period.
Despite this idea of power to the people, what do you think will happen if the US proper (NOT Bush, ot Cheney, et al) is not around to keep SOME order?
During these Cheney years, it’s been pretty much the wild west for retarded, thickheaded white men, and such, and the WORLD has fallen apart.
WE need policemen, we need order, we need goodhearted smart people who play fairly.
Period.
We ALL need the US, or something better, if it should arise.
Nobody wants an empire, anyone who wants a fair chance at a decent life should be entitled to that chance, as long as they respect the rights of others.
This isn’t Rumsfeld’s US…
YOU need a mass-murder for “police”, YOU have it. WHO asked USA to police a world?
And remember 9/11, it was a result of a “good” no-Bush USA policing the world (i.e. creating al-Qaida to snare USA)
to snare USSR, sorry for typo
So WHY Clinton, while being asked about NON-existent Iran a-bomb did NOT say “Iran, by USA own spies report does NOT have it, so please, next question”?
And how nice it for Iranians know that Clinton did NOT threat mass-murder ALL of them, she was only about “balance of power”. Esp. after what USA did with another “nuclear” state - Iraq.
I also wonder, if Putin said “if Israel a-bomb Iran, we’ll obliterate Israel” whould Amanda be happy with her “balance of power” theory?
After all, Israel HAS a-bomb, it treats Iran daily, and it attacks its neighbours almost daily. So I guess it would be OK if Russia do a bit of “balance of power” of its own. After all, Iran has a border with Russia, unlike USA and Israel
Darling lidia, you might be under the assumption that you are dealing with “non-educated” Clinton supports. It’s not your fault, really. However, I don’t tend to teach you world geography 101, since it appears you need some lessons. I guess you are still looking to find Obama’s Great Lakes in Oregon, so keep looking. When you find them, maybe I will entertain myself with you in geopolitics 101. Russia’s role in ME might be a little bit too much for you to comprehend so, I promise you we’ll not go there.
Dear Amanda, I guess ONLY very educated Clinton supportes think that ONLY Obama supporters could not love Clinton. So I am NOT looking at where you KNOWS I am looking. Instead, I am looking into Iraq (Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran).
After all, I live in Israel, I KNOW something about USA war crimes (and Israel’s ones too)
And for me Obama is NOT better than Clinton.
And I am from Russia, so I guess I could learn about it from you as well, thanks, after you stop presume what you does NOT know.
It seems to me you need help in areas where I can’t help you.
Again, maybe Nauru would be a nice sunny place ;).
But sure, Amamnda could help me to learn how to tell horror stories about “life under communism”
And I am sure USA is a very nice place (unless there is some 9/11 - without ANY reason, sure)
And to NOT have to admit of being a “know-all” (not really) is VERY handy, I suppose
Lidia, less Rush Limbaugh, and more Joe Wilson.
If the intellectual discourse simply reiterates the fearful propaganda used by the simpletons Rove, Kristol and Axelrod, the basis for our discussion is skewed, unrealistic. We need to learn how to think, and understand the reality of what we see, whether it’s me, or you, or the American public.
We’ve all been fed some junk, Obama uses the politics of fear, Clinton doesn’t.
And, sad to say, though I would have taken another tack with the “bomb Iran” comment, it is ALL some people understand, knowing force will be used.
I would say, though, given an intelligent president, the US will never have to bomb Iran, as the Iranian government can be gamed against itself, victims of it’s own stupidity.
The Russians understand this very well about Iran.
Or not.
Thank you for posting, though.
So, to therat “obliterate” a country of 71 million is NOT using the politics of fear?
But of course, some people (non-whites, sure) ONLY understand such language. Thanks for a fine example of a liberal anti-war American. After all, poor little USA could be FORSED to bomb Iran (a war crime, by the way, but who gives a damn?)
So much for others’ stupidity, at least Iranian government does NOT commit war crimes (very unlike poor little USA which only needs a good prez - like Clinton, or Obama - they all the same really)
I wonder, WHEN such people as patrons of this site will be able to see how the world see them?
How should we treat Iran, are we bullying an innocent government?
NO, we’re not, we’re telling a bunch of mediocre jealous hearts if they get out of line, they’ll be held accountable. And the people of Iran? I would hope Clinton would help to free them, while maintaining US strategic position. This sometimes takes years, like the cold war it is a long term goal.
No way could Clinton take that issue off the table, nuclear bombing, at this point, given what the doofus Cheney and the porn star rockets have done to the middle east and the perception of American power there. They have undermined it through the overuse of stupid threats, and actual violence, in the form of ropeadope strategy, and the use of torture, and white phosphorus.
Clinton would have looked like an Obama amateur if she had said nukes were off the table. No one under any circumstances thinks nukes are acceptable, but really, once dumbo Cheney and Bush are gone, which government now has the mantle of king kookoo butt?
Why, those handsome men of Iran.
Each situation is unique, any foreign policy toward Iran has to be considered within a greater context, Clinton understands this, it is simply out of the lil bama’s league, and I have yet to hear what McCain’s lobbyists think.
There are no absolutes, you really have ot broaden your thinking, violence is the LST thing anyone wants, it can and is easily defeated, even an aerial bombing really accomplishes nothing, when in the hands of a donut like Cheney, and his lil buddy, Addington.
Iran really may face a bigger enemy in Russia than the US, anyway, it should watch it’s back, friends aren’t always friends, esp where oil is concerned…
Clinton has to clean it up.
So many factors have to be considered, for her to answer any other way at this point would have been ill advised.
Obama will not be elected President, but his staff would be worse than Bush’s, a bunch of fifth rate advisers, with NO experience, or really understanding of strategy, at all.
And since he can’t lead, like Bush, where’s it going to come from the geniuses who have run his disaster of a campaign?
He’s laughable.
You really have a typically American simplistic, stereotypic, unrealistic view of Iran and probably of most of the rest of the world.
PS You also show every indication of having a typically American arrogantly belligerant, “I’m bigger, better and holier than thou and I can boss everyone around” attitude. It is, by all indications, the United States which is going to collapse of the weight of its own ignorant arrogance, and the collapse appears to be in progress even as we speak.
I, for one, think this would be a good thing for humanity, including American humanity. Being the world’s biggest bully doesn’t benefit Americans any more than it benefits the rest of the world.
Iran has been minding its own business and has not attacked another country for more than a quarter century, and is not likely to unless forced to by some action of the United States and/or Israel. Iran is not an aggressor state, and is not the problem. The United States government and its lust for world dominance, along with Israel and its lust for regional dominance and land acquisition are creating the problems.
“given an intelligent president, the US will never have to bomb Iran, as the Iranian government can be gamed against itself, victims of it’s own stupidity.”
Given a truly intelligent president Iran would quickly become a friendly state, if not an out and out ally. THAT is the direction in which Iran would like to go. Unfortunately, given the current crop of potential presidents the chances of that happening are slim to none. In America the ideology of the superpower-cum-empire wins out over practical considerations every bloody time.
I guess that imperialism is not a matter of stupidity or even ideology. Iran WAS a “friend” of USA ONLY when it was a lackey of big oil (and a help to police the ME for USA and Israel)
ANY non-lakey-of-imperialism state is an aim for USA crimes.
Your thinking is OLD, things have changed, if you don’t, you will fail.
Period.
There’s a new dance in town, there’s always a new dance in town, best to stay current.
Ok, lidia, I guess what I’m trying to say is the US, or really any fairly advanced govt, including, say, certain aspects of the British government, the smart ones, anyway, don’t need nukes to destroy Iran.
Iran will be a victim of it’s own ideology like Bush, and the neocon nancys.
And don’t always be so quick to blame the US, look at what other countries, do, too, in the name of global economies.
The Iranian government is far more intelligent and nuanced in its thinking than you seem to understand. The Iranian government would by and large actually like to get along with the rest of the world, including, believe it or not, the USA IF the USA would take its head out of its ideological ass and look around a bit.
“Obliterate = deterrence = balance of power in ME.”
Bullshit. In the real world of real language obliterate = to remove or destroy all traces of; do away with; destroy completely. - i.e. to “wipe off the map”.
And what a fascinating double standard you “liberal” Americans have regarding the ME! The President of Iran, is maliciously misquoted as saying “Israel should be wiped off the map” (which is, in fact, not at all what he said), and you all go into a pants-peeing tizzy. A candidate for the presidency of the United States of America makes an explicit threat to wipe a Muslim country off the map, and you spin it to death.
I wish I were back in Syria - until, of course, the U.S. decides to act like a superpower and wipe THAT country off the map.
PS I don’t have a problem CALLING the United States a superpower, I have a problem with the way the United States behaves in the world.
Out of curiosity, what would anyone make of the statement ‘the current central command is the worst, ever.”
Nothing is ever that simple, if the world thought the CIA was represented by men like Michael Something,(the torture guy Larry makes fun of) well, they’d think US intelligence was populated by mediocre intellects, on the make, capable of being gamed, and suckered, at will.
It’s not.
Same would be true of Central Command.
Someone mentioned this to me, and I didn’t feel able to argue it with him, properly, as we’ve really had so little examination and analysis of command, in terms of what went wrong, how the military failed, here, in the face of Bush, and Cheney, and their civilian pentagon, and the APPALLING lack of moral courage exhibited in defending the constitution. Fallon and Shinseki, among others, stood up to Bush, maybe by firing them Bush hurt himself, and his cause. So the military DIDN’T fail, there, those men did the right thing, and they prevailed, in the end, achieving a win, asymmetrical as it is.
One could say they succeeded because the Constitution is still standing, and the enemy, so to speak, has been fleshed out.
(I’m not speaking of the brass we see on the news every night, oh, I don’t know, I think the ones “winning it” are the ones we don’t see on the news…)
I guess command, though, the military adminstration, and the abilty to communicate, and lead, solve the Iraqi and Afghanistani wars presents a problem needing to be solved within the parameters of the Constitution. The law went right out the window after 9.11, with a BIG push from Cheney, the WORST thing they could have done, hurting their own ability to win, and playing into Cheney’s delusional weathered lil paranoid head.
Why don’t they understand the Constitution is better than “the art of war?”
Because they don’t understand either document.
If one STILL does not know what the world thinks about CIA, I could enlight him/her.
They think that CIA is the biggest terrorist organization (tortue, kidnapping, murder, propaganda and so on ) AFTER USA army. USA army is the criminal organisation which NOW is mass-murdering, and some “liberal, anti-Bush” Americans says the army is OK, only Bush is not.
As if the same army did NOT the same under EVERY USA prez. Sorry, but the world has a better memory.
Ok, Noam Chomsky is very proud of you. Run along now … to Liechtenstein, Nauru, or some other countries that don’t have standing armies.
So, Amanda even KNOWS who is Chomski? LOL
And she KNOWS, that ONLY a fan of Chomski could see USA crimes. Note for know-all Amanda - a majority of the world see them (or even FEEL them)
Now it is SO typical of “educated” USAmerican do NOT know about some armies which do NOT commite war crimes. After all, I do NOT know about the army of Finland war crmes.
lidia, dont think in black/white, it’s very Bush, Cheney, Iran, and so last century.
Yes, sure, and the site is NOT “black (Obama)/white (Clinton)”
Iran is NOT threating ANYBODY, Clinton IS. (Obama is as well).
And please, stop to pretend that Bush is aberration - he is not different from Clinton (Bill). They both commited war crimes and are happy with it.
If you think that way, I really can’t help you.
Well, I still enjoy your posts…
So fascinating that you equate Iran with Bush and Cheney. Shows how little you actually know about Iran.
I think both men are unstable, corrupt opportunists, bottom line.
And I think both men are connected to each other through corruption.
I have no illusions about the the mullahs, bottom line, money talks.
More Rev Wright, than Jesse, Sr…
So tell me Shirin, what do you think?
Don’t romanticize those fools, those who hang gay men for the crime of being gay are not to feared.
And if you believe the micro, you are misguided, they just are not that good, you are not seeing your enemy.
One big difference between me and you is that I don’t have enemies.
Another difference between me and you is that I have actually spent time in Iran and once upon a time could more or less get by in the language.
Yet another difference is that I have first-hand experience and actual knowledge of the Middle East and Islam.
And finally, I understand that it is not Iran that is the enemy of the United States, it is the United States that has decided to be the enemy of Iran.
I don’t romanticize anyone or anything. I don’t have to. More to the point, unlike you I do not demonize, which is, after all, just the flip side of the romanticization coin, isn’t it?
I as have mentioned in a previous post, the process of emmbedding was use not just in the press.
When Wesley Clark, while commentating on CNN noticed the Iraqi forces “melt away”, he raised a red flag he was shown the door.
I remembered that, too.
So he has more credibility with me, but he was never a whore, he could actually command, write an effective PLAN, it’s my impression a lot of brass “plays brass,” like a child plays house, mimicking his or her mother, and father.
It’s not the same as being a parent, though.
Frank’s cartoon is very enlightening.
Fred C. Dobbs, Remember when the King of Saudi Arabia summoned Cheney? What’s your best guess on what that was all about?
Ah, WHAT a set up line, all I can see is Cheney bending over, his big behind being paddle spanked by the King…