Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
is al gore a governmrnt official spreading gvt propaganda stephanie? or is he doing his ''thing'' as an individual?And this just kills me......about propaganda...
How about Albore...saying we only have so much time, to save the planet NOW......or we all gonna die...
floods
food shortages
diseases
The sun is gonna bake our asses.......
No propaganda there. But of course.......No Democrat would EVER use........PROPAGANDA........
Oh fer crying out loud....
Are we still into this nonsense.....
Nobody...Ever said......Iraq was involved in 9/11..
Get a grip.
propaganda, and the repeated message of such is a very powerful tool.Specials>Buildup in the Gulf
from the March 14, 2003 edition
The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.
In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq. But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.
Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.
This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don't rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.
The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."
Future fallout
In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.
"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over."
Antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg says it's important to understand why public opinion appears to be playing out differently in the US and Europe. In fact, both peoples express a desire to work through the UN. But the citizens get different messages from their leaders. "Americans have been told by their president [that Hussein is] a threat to security, and so they believe that," says Mr. Ellsberg. "It's rather amazing, in light of that, that so many Americans do want this to be authorized by the UN. After all, the president keeps saying we don't have to ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves."
No, I just believe that there was a concious effort to scare Americans, through propaganda, and the Administration used it purposely and effectively.
Really...did he "scare" these people too? It's funny, you say Bush was fear mongering but it is really YOU who is fear mongering by putting fear into people if they vote Rep. The real issue here is not if we should have invaded Iraq it is how the war was and is being handled.
Democratic "Yay" votes on the authorization for military action in Iraq:
Baucus (D-MT),
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
That a very nice myriad of non sequiturs.
Has The president of the United States of America said Anna Nicole Smiths name 183 times in 30 days? and then had the MSM repeat that? in effect doubling it?
Did the President hold press conferences every other day and say Cindy Sheehans name 40 some odd times?
Im talking about Propaganda,
Ill give the Definition as it applies to this specifically again;
"Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people.
Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can present facts but do so selectively, produce deliberately misleading information, or load messages, whether essentially truthful or not, with emotional meaning in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the message that is being presented
Please tell me how this does not qualify
Attack-s - 25
Enemy-ies - 16
Terror-ist-ism - 183
9/11- Sept 11th- 16
OBL - 4
Al Qaeda - 18
Taliban - 14
Evil-doer - 40
God - 8
War - 74
Afghanistan - 14
Justice - 32
Murder-er-s - 7
Fight - 14
Threat-s - 9
He said this in 30 days, just 30 days, you are ignoring how much more he continued to say these words, selectively, and purposely.
it was the authorization to relinqish their constitutional duty to declare war, to the president of the untited states. These senators did not vote for a war or declare war.
The president was given the sole power to make this decision on starting a war against iraq, with certain other reqirements, that he never bothered to do.
the senators above did not vote for or declare any war.
read my post again. They voted for the "authorization to use miltary action". It is an executive right as the Commander in Chief to use the military. He wasnt "given" the sole power. It is in the constitution. No war has been declared since WWII
now im confused, because when you get into law and constituion, you might as well speak french, im not too smart here.
It is still UNCONSTITUTIONAL.read my post again. They voted for the "authorization to use miltary action". It is an executive right as the Commander in Chief to use the military. He wasnt "given" the sole power. It is in the constitution. No war has been declared since WWII
It is still UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And they voted to allow the president, as a last resort, after inspections, to use military force to get saddam to follow Resolution 1441. and it required him to come back to congress before he declared any conflict against Iraq and show them what he did to accomplish this through Diplomacy, and show them the support of the UN for this venture with a 2nd resolution from them. Bush avoided this and avoided the 2nd resolution from the un in support of us.
Let's not rewrite history.
And at the time of this vote, our President went before Congress and TOLD THEM that he had NOT made up his mind yet to use force and that he would use every measure to solve our problems with saddam WITHOUT using any force FIRST.
He said over and over that his mind was not made up yet. Everyone seems to forget that this is what the president told us and told congress at the time of this resolution.
And regardless of all of this, it is still UNCONSTITUTIONAL to not have our congress and senate DECLARE WAR.
This is where our problems lie and congress giving up this constitutional duty to declare war has gotten us in to dilemmas like we are in now, with our country devided and nearly at war with eachother.
With a vote by Congress to declare war, there would have been huge debate on the floors of the HOuses and each representative of ours would have had to cast their vote according to what their costituants wanted....thus making us a part of it, because, after all, it is our husbands and children that our gvt would be sending off to possibly be killed. WE, THE PEOPLE according to our constitution have this as as way to voice our opinions and concerns regarding using our military in an agressive manner.
If we Declared War as the constitution states for Wars that we go in to, then it would take 2/3's majority voting yes, IN BOTH THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE, not a mere 50% majority, but the constitution requires 2/3's of our representation to declare a war and use our military to kill and to be killed.
This was intentional writing it this way in the Constitution because according to them, we should NOT be using our citizens serving their country for wars of CHOICE.
Authorization to use Force, should only be for immediate, quick solutions, to problems that may arise. NEVER for a full fledge war.
This should be DECLARED, according to the standards of our Constitution in my opinion and that of many others too!
care
It was a dereliction of their duties to abdicate their responsibility to declare war and give it to the President RSR!Why are Dems running away from their votes?
To appease their kook base, Dems are willing to surrender to the terrorists for political gain
Care, most of the Dems did NOT even read the intl report made available to them
I KNOW!!!!!! As I said, a dereliction of duty all around by Congress and the Senate imo!
I have anger towards the terrorist that committed 911 and those that ordered it!!!!!!!!! i think we took our eye off the ball and did not pursue the terrorists and Bin Laden in the agressive manner that we should have and starting a war of choice in iraq hurt this goal to get who attacked us on 911.So why not take all the anger and hate the left has for Pres Bush and direct it toward the real enemy - the terrorists?
I have anger towards the terrorist that committed 911 and those that ordered it!!!!!!!!! i think we took our eye off the ball and did not pursue the terrorists and Bin Laden in the agressive manner that we should have and starting a war of choice in iraq hurt this goal to get who attacked us on 911.
i think if binladen was captured or killed immediately after 911, then it would have given a solid blow, mentally, to their jihad cause, because with osama's demise would have been the mindset thar Allah, was AGAINST them!
care
Really...did he "scare" these people too? It's funny, you say Bush was fear mongering but it is really YOU who is fear mongering by putting fear into people if they vote Rep. The real issue here is not if we should have invaded Iraq it is how the war was and is being handled.
Democratic "Yay" votes on the authorization for military action in Iraq:
Baucus (D-MT),
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
