Once again Sudheer Anne, you throw in your little sound byte attack but fail to contribute anything to the discussion...predictable but not particularly persuasive.
We are talking quite specifically about propaganda used to persuade a nation to support a war...if you look at the entire spectrum of American and European wars of the last 200 years or so, all were based entirely on propanda that was either inherently false or quite misleading. The Spanish-American, Mexican and Indian Wars were all the products of propaganda that revolved around the notion of Manifest Destiny. WW1 was a huge propaganda war, where the nations of Europe quite ignorantly marched into combat thinking it was going to be some glorious and noble affair...technology ended that notion very quickly, with all nations involved too stubbornly nationalistic to rationally withdraw. Of course, the reparations against Germany after WW1 set the stage for the rise of Nazi Germany, and western imperialism helped to transform Japan into a modern military powerhouse with ambitions of regional conquest. The Allies of WW2 were quite responsible for creating the demons against which they fought...kind of like Saddam.
It doesn't make it acceptable, but that is simply the reality of the world we live in...furthermore, posting a dissenting or opposing viewpoint does not make you an enemy...far from it...I love a good debate...but do not assume that just because YOU believe something that it is absolute TRUTH.
Not exactly, because I have stated many times that I believe the war in Iraq was not a case of overt or deliberate deception...but rather the impetuous and irresponsible acts of a President attempting to appear decisive in the wake of an attack on American soil, and then terribly blundering the war effort due to poor strategic planning.
Sorry, not buying it...that may be the generally accepted answer, but I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that suggests this as a motive. Then again, nations do go to war to secure natural resources, and perhaps a war in the Middle East was inevitable.
Such a temper...can I play too and throw in some curse words, or should I just bold my response for emphasis.
I already did, and you have yet to respond with anything other childish and immature tantrums. At least others who disagree with me have attempted to engage in a dialogue.
Because I can't blame the guy for being effective at what he does...essentially propaganda consulting...he is a political player in Washington, and has honed his skills at the propaganda machine for over a decade...and his rise to political prominance was due largely to both Democrats and Republicans utilizing his services and expertise. He was fairly honest in the article, and the quotes attributed to Renton paint the picture of a man who is product of the system...he filled a void for a service that was in demand for Washington politics.
People like me? 😕
Frackal provided a response to your question, so now it is a question of "when" he provided his consulting services...and you accuse the right of spinning.
Because there is nothing to address...that Rendon quite readily admits his actions kind of derails any allegations of some vast conspiracy...it's all out in the open...nothing covert or secretive about it.
That is largely speculation on your part. Because none of us were sitting in the Oval Office when the Bush Administration devised its strategy for Iraq...we can take a guess as to Bush's motivations...you can choose to believe in some vast right wing conspiracy to deceive the world through some propaganda strategy...I believe its more a case of the Bush Administration making an impetuous decision on Iraq, and then attempting to justify that decision once the reality set in that they made a grave strategic blunder.
Yes, she was sitting in Starbucks devising a campaign strategy for the Democrats in 2008, along with the Easter bunny, Santa, Elvis and the Roswell aliens :roll:
Hmmm...
Pretty damned obvious except to the most rabid of the Bush-God fanbois.
LOL...the article you posted is riddled with quotes from anonymous sources.
Pretty damn funny coming from you.
Typical...when you have nothing of value to add, attack the credibility of the messenger...isn't this the type of dirty smear tactics you typically whine about.
I never shot the messenger...I specifically addressed the credibility of the message...if I were to post an article with numerous random and anonymous quotes, you guys would be tearing the article apart on credibility...your hypocrisy is astounding.
Or the author could just be quoting them out of context, which is also a possibility, and certainly not a leap of faith given the professionalism demonstrated by contemporary American journalists.
And you know what conjur, I typically try to treat you with respect even if I don't always necessarily agree with you because you seem like a fairly intelligent and reasonable guy...this type of behavior is beneath the intellectual posture with which you post.
