Propaganda’s Forward March

Well, Ken, you and Penn can attack the GOP and call people nasty names until the end of time but that does not do much to advance your parties or to tell us why anyone should vote for your parties.

The ties between OBL and Soddom Insane are now documented. If the DOD says that the public document is inaccurate, it just might mean that the case is even worse than that document shows.

Ken, you and Penn do not think that this is World War III so you want to cut and run.

 

What nasty name (besides "liberal") has KenH called anyone? Or PaJim? If anything, I think Ken has given us a surfeit of info regarding his party.

In much the same way, Iraq's purchase of yellow uranium from Niger was documented.

"If"? Is the document public?

If pigs had wings they just might be able to fly.

I don't recall either of them saying that they wanted to run. You seem to have extrapolated "[we should] cut and run" from "the war was entered into under false pretenses".

 

Daisy, it has been obvious for some time now that the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists have been attacking Bush from a left-wing Democrat position. The title of this thread (propaganda) shows the name-calling of the Libertarians and Constitutionalists. These two minor parties have also been tossing around the name Jacobin, meaning a murderer who violently overthrows his government. Bush has also been called a liar, a Clinton liberal, and someone that a decent Christian should not vote for.

As a Democrat, Daisy, you might have enjoyed this name-calling by the Libertarians and Constitutionalists.

The link--which has nothing to do with the African case, which the British still stand by in spite of your disapproval, Daisy--is the Weekly Standard article called "Case Closed." That is what Ken and Penn are now calling lies.

Ken and Penn say that we should not have gone to war against terror in Iraq. It seems logical then to conclude that they want to cut and run like Howard Dean advocates. I was willing to listen to the third parties until the Libertarians and Constitutionalists aligned themselves with the ultra leftists in an exaggerated attack upon Bush. Now I consider both of those parties reprehensible.

If you think that this sort of bitter name-calling discussion belongs on a Christian message board, then I disagree with you, too, Daisy. I agreed with your term of surfeit.

The Constitutionalists and the Libertarians will never be able to gain respect with these unsavory tactics in my opinion.

I support our troops and their families. They are giving their lives for the USA. Bush is commander in chief and deserves the help of the American people. Look how ex-President Carter went overseas and made an attack against Bush. That sort of overseas attack used to be taboo.

 

First of all, CMG, I don't know what you are talking about with your reference to name-calling.

Next, you are absolutely incorrect in your assertion that "the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists have been attacking Bush from a left-wing Democrat position." Some are. But I, and many like me, are not even close to left wing or Democrat. From what I've seen posted on the BB, I'd say that my positions are less "Democrat" and farther right than yours.

Just because I disagree with your liberal choice for President doesn't make me "left wing"...actually to the contratry.

I agree that we should not have gotten into this awful mess. I am amused by your habit of attempting to discredit arguments by finding a "bad guy" who shares the same position.

Not very intelligent arguments, I think. "CMG likes banana pudding. Bill Clinton likes banana pudding. CMG and Bill Clinton must both be liberals". Nope, doesn't cut it.


Support the troops. Bring them home.

 

Politics does make strange bedfellows.

Now we have liberal Democrats, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists all saying that we should cut and run from Iraq.

And we have all three groups saying that a "good" Christian could not vote anyway but against Bush.

And all three groups want to cut and run.

Now Bush is what he is. I notice, Penn, that you have complained that Bush is syncretistic. Well, Penn, the Pope is syncretistic also, but you do not complain about the Pope because he, like you, is against the war in Iraq. So are you interested in politics or religion?

Now about "The Weekly Standard" article called "Case Closed" that Ken has said is propaganda from lying neo-cons. I think in politics it is not a bad idea to think the worst of everybody--you are seldom disappointed.

To me it is naive to say that the Arabs are not in cahoots. And the status quo is that every terrorists available is crawling from underneath his rock towards Babylon. Did you expect less from Satan? "The Weekly Standard" has published Iraq's links to terror in case today's nightly news is not enough for you:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

 

Clearly the Bush administration has failed to follow up on the invasion of Iraq with an effective rebuilding scheme.
Mostly because apparently nobody ever bothered to write anything resembling a rebuilding plan.
In fact the lack of such a plan was the main reason Colin Powell was less than enthousiastic about the whole invasion thing.
This has nothing to do with political ideology and everything with basic incompetence.
http://www.netwerk.tv/index.jsp?p=items&r=netwerk&a=66503

 

Powell has been dragging his feet all these years because he is a liberal, pro-choice, and Republican in name only. If Bush is re-elected, Powell should find some charitable work that he wants to do or perhaps take a corporate job so that he can stash away a few tens of millions for his retirement.

 

Oh, I thought that Powell was one of the neo-con liars or one of those spreading propaganda that Iraq has links to international terrorism. Did I miss a point in the Libertarian-Constitutionalist-liberal Democrat script?

 

And even KenH has joined the Libertarian-Constitutionalist-liberal Democrat-cut-and-run party and that is why KenH says that neo-cons are lying about terror and their proofs are propaganda.

 

KenH,

Neo-cons are the mainstream of the Republican Party. It is no longer the party of Goldwater/Reagan.

And how exactly is the neo-conservatism of Bush's foreign policy different from the conservatism of Reagan's foreign policy? Evidence?

 

What the heck are you talking about? I couldn't have told you where the Pope stands on the war until I read your post. Nor do I care. Obviously I spend little time complaining abou thte Pope because he is not part of anyhing in which I am involved. Bush is the President of my country.

Make John Paul President and Bush the Pope, then I'll switch my emphasis. Hey...maybe we're on to a good idea here...

 

KenH,

President Reagan lead the fight against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and won. He did not wish to build an American empire by invading Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, then Saudi Arabia, etc.

It sounds like yours and amcon's imaginations have gotten the best of you. Reagan called evil evil and responded to it. Bush has called evil evil and is responding to it. Admittedly, it hasn't gone as easily as anyone hoped, but now it seems you would have us do as liberals wished twenty years ago, to retreat in the face of evil.

 

Then, Ken, you should withdraw your criticism that the "neo-con" proof of the link between Iraq and international terror is lying propaganda. There is no American empire to replace the old British empire. We are going to leave Korea--you watch. Korea is a perfect example of what happens when the nation says that there is a substitute for victory. We are also going to leave Germany.

 

KenH,

Do you people ever actually read what people write in this forum? If I may be so bold as to quote myself

If may be so bold as to borrow some of your arrogance above, I responded to your posting of another article, in detail, to several of the items therein, but you apparently either ignored my response or were overwhelmed by it. The thread here so let's watch how quickly we judge the kettle, pot, eh?

Nevertheless,

point well taken.

Now maybe you'll withdraw your criticism of American imperial ambition, unless of course you now "agree" with the "neo-cons" (quotations to emphasize the imagination implied in the earlier argument) that we need an empire there after all.