Bah, pass me another apple, bah, bah... _____________________________________________ The Media Influence on the Sheep of Society (6/17/2004) It is alarming at how easily the sheep of society can be manipulated by the most transparent media ploys. A chorus of bah, bah, bah can be heard as the sheep parrot something they read or saw in the media; seemingly without a single thought at the validity of the claim. Reminds me of David St. Hobbins from Spinal Tap, who offered that he was a better person because he believes everything he reads. Only difference was that the Spinal Tap movie was actually a mock.... or a mockumentory as it were...whereas the sheep I am referring to actually exist and probably take themselves rather seriously. The most recent example of this was the stories about the 9-11 commission not finding a link between the Saddam Hussein Regime and the Al Qaeda attacks on that day. The stories from the N.Y Times and gang suggested that this was a contradiction from what the White House has asserted all along. "Oh My God" the sheep bahed, "this contradicts the President's main justification for war against Saddam, and proves he is a liar." Bah. The simple truth is that the President never asserted that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11. Neither did Dick Cheney, or Colin Powell, or George Tenet. What they did assert and still stand behind is that the Saddam had long standing ties with Al Qaeda and other terror organizations. They claimed that the terrorist had looked to Iraq in the past for safe haven and possibly weapons. There certainly appears to be much evidence that there was safe haven given to terrorists, and positive proof that Saddam actually paid the families of Palestinian terrorists who died in acts of terror. Saddam's support for terrorist is a foregone conclusion. In fact the 9-11 commission did actually come up with evidence that there was contact between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Regime regarding weapons and/or safe haven within the time period they were investigating; just that there was no evidence of cooperation at the time. If the 9-11 commission found evidence of meetings between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Regime in the months leading up to 9-11, certainly we cannot realistically pretend that these meetings were an isolated instance over the years. Certainly we cannot suggest that Al Qaeda was the only terrorist group that Saddam and company met with. Not unless you run with the sheep. But getting back to the recent media ploy that has riled up the local herd. Funny how a few months ago we had these same folks questioning why polling showed that many Americans thought that Saddam was involved in 9-11, in spite of no evidence and no real suggestion that he was. Then, they argued, it was the general public who were the sheep, easily influenced by innuendo and not willing to look deep enough into the truth. Now, when the commission confirmed what they once claimed that they already knew... suddenly the sheep all gather to bah about it as if it was something new to them. Bah. As if it wasn't enough for these farm animals to misrepresent the Presidents justification for going to war when they suggested that it was 'all' about WMD's.... suddenly a new straw man argument has broken out. The President invaded Iraq because he claimed they were directly involved with 9-11. Apparently, they are so confused by the recent media ploy that they can't even keep the logical fallacies straight anymore. Bah. I guess in a perfect world, everyone would take what the read and hear from the media with a grain of salt. They would use their common sense to determine if what they read or hear has credibility. But in the meantime, I guess we have to live in a world where people behave more like the fictional David St. Hobbins than real people with independent thought. http://www.coldheartedtruth.com/latest-truth.html
I agree with you that they were told this before hand. That doesn't make it right, but I don't want to argue that decision by our government. I do want to say that it does show an interest in the possibility of financial gain prior to the invasion. Knowing that an invasion was coming and being concerned only about finance wouldn't those countries go along with it in order to be able to bid on contracts? I think it shows there was more than just money involved in their decision. So if a country is willing to take a financial setback but still stand by a stance like that, would seem to indicate that if there was a legitimate threat that they knew about to the U.S. they would most likely sacrifice some the $$ for standing by a tough decision.
Russia also warned us during the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda was gonna use planes as missiles somewhere on U.S. soil, and do so soon. Guess GWB couldn't have been bothered to follow up on that.
"he walked away, but his smiled never dimmed and said, I'm gonna be like him, yeah, you know I'm gonna be like him."
Oh yeah, they were a real threat. I didn't step foot out of my house everyday that Saddam was in power, that I didn't feel threatened. I never knew when the next wave of Iraqis were going to attack. None of us were safe for an instant. Now look at us. We are just one big happy family here, snug as bug in a rug, with no Saddam to threaten us. Boy, I just shiver thinking about how dangerous life was less than 2 years ago.
Hey,...the the President of Russia said so...You don't know the extent of various threats, otherwise you might have been kind to have warned us of 9/11...maybe, maybe no...
until another 15 people from Saudi Arabia (not Iraq) decide to praise Allah again by strapping themsleves with explosives and blowing up a refinery ... or until your kids trun 18 and get drafted (I know... cheap shot)
The president of Russia said they had intel about Saddam wanting to use terrorists against the U.S. He didn't say how credible the threat was, it obviously wasn't serious enough that the Russians felt we should invade, thus they opposed that idea.
You're kidding, right? Tell that to the kids of our 140,000 men and women in uniform in Iraq. or to the kids of the tens of thousands of contractors working in Iraq. Or to their wives and parents, friends and loved ones. I doubt sleep comes so easily for them. And when they consider why we invaded Iraq in the first place and how mislead the world and the American people were by the Administration, then I would imagine that sleep comes harder still. At least you can sleep soundly and smile, apparently. I happy for you.
I mean, yeah, we wouldn't want to be so cynical as to think that Putin would be LYING in order to gain some sort of political favor from King George, should the Supreme Court decide to re-elect Monkey Boy (if the no-paper-trail voting machines that big Republican-donor-companies are rushing into service for November don't do the trick...)
Though this scenario is unlike, I ask......is it inconceivable? Especially fragile political world we live in? Is Russia trully our friends or just another convenience relation? What was Puttin's view of the fall of communism? I ask again, is it inconceivable? Why would the state this and not support the war? Why did they provide other contradictory intelligence and postures? Hmmmm......so many questions......
