NationStates Jolt Archive

A thread started a few days ago, suggested that the public wasn't getting all the good news from Iraq.

Alleged Iraq Propaganda Probed

What IF the public is getting "invented" news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/01/iraq/main1092397.shtml)? Kinda serious, depending on the severity?

There is also a reference to the same story in the video clip:

New Candor On Iraq (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml)

Yeah I heard about this and hope that they put an end to it. How many of these fake news reports were held up as proof that we were the saviors of Iraq by the Bush backers I wonder. I don't deny that there are thousands of good deeds being done in Iraq by very good soldiers who only want to help as they try to restore the Iraqi infrastructure, parks schools and whatnot. I never did deny that, but it does strike me as a bit odd and I wonder how many of those do good stories were simply made up?

I love how the government still acts like they didn't do anything wrong by lying...
Kinda reminds me of how even today the government denies the existance of Area 51, even though you can go onto the Google Sattelite pictures and find it. :p

Well, another nail in the coffin of US credibility, I guess.

I love how the government still acts like they didn't do anything wrong by lying...
Kinda reminds me of how even today the government denies the existance of Area 51, even though you can go onto the Google Sattelite pictures and find it. :p

They moved area 51 you know. ;)

They moved area 51 you know. ;)


Some of it. THey still use the site. I've seen way better "UFO's" in Ogden Utah than I ever see In Vegas. They have a huge base up there in N. Utah that is gaurded more heavily than area 51 ever was.

Some of it. THey still use the site. I've seen way better "UFO's" in Ogden Utah than I ever see In Vegas. They have a huge base up there in N. Utah that is gaurded more heavily than area 51 ever was.

That's where they moved it... ;)

That's where they moved it... ;)

Would you please look at this flashy device I have here, sir? *flash* There is no such thing as area 51 or UFOs or gods or gnomes or anything. Have a haircut, get a job, and stop being a hippy. Oh, and remember to always tip.

That's where they moved it... ;)


They aren't very good at keepign secrets from the general public are they?

They coudl at least not fly that stuff over residential areas. Although the stuff I believed could be experimental aircraft was all in the mountains up there (caught on video by a friend too - sent to sightings - a month later his house and all teh copies of the tapes were in flames). The UFO I saw over a residential area, hovered above me for a bit and then flew into a vortex in space that came out of nowhere and then closed back up (I don't think that was US Govt.). :eek:

Somehow, I don't think Area 51 has anything to do with Iraq propaganda. :eek:

Somehow, I don't think Area 51 has anything to do with Iraq propaganda. :eek:

Thats what they want you to think! I too was hoping to see the opinions of the bush backers on this issue.

With the Newsweek blunder a couple of months ago, and numerous other false/misleading reports here in the U.S., it makes me wonder who to trust. It appears more and more that the major media outlets cannot get their stories right. It is as though they purposely look for faults then fabricate them. The media in Iraq is not owned by Saddam anymore and are much more reliable now then ever. Not that their reliability is an absolute but it is probably no worse than here in the U.S.. It is scary to think that the media has to compete with hollywood for viewership and readers. That only invites stories that are based on a thread of truth and blown all out of porportion.

A thread started a few days ago, suggested that the public wasn't getting all the good news from Iraq.

Alleged Iraq Propaganda Probed

What IF the public is getting "invented" news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/01/iraq/main1092397.shtml)? Kinda serious, depending on the severity?

There is also a reference to the same story in the video clip:

New Candor On Iraq (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml)

NO ONE has disputed the truth in the artices.
NO ONE has been forced to publish the articles
The articles are all vetted by publisheres before being published.
If the media could actually move around Iraq without being kidnapped, then they could report more accurately about what's going on. Instead, they are scared to leave their hotel rooms, and all they report are the carbombs they can see and hear from the green zone.

The terrorists are stopping the press from getting all the stories, so who gives a shit if we give them some good news stories to counter the terrorist propaganda?

Can ANYONE show me where ANY of the stories have been found to be false?

Let me remind you all that Freedom of the Press swings both ways, and we have never denied any part of this story, nor have we lied in any of them.

Yeah, shame on us for getting our message out too! :rolleyes:

I wonder how many different ways we could compare the Bush administration to Saddams administration.

1. Paid the press to report favorable stories about them.

2. Killed civilians while fighting a foreign force as well as a homegrown insurgency.

3. In the oil business

4. Close friends with very shady characters.

feel free to add your own.

I wonder how many different ways we could compare the Bush administration to Saddams administration.

1. Paid the press to report favorable stories about them.

2. Killed civilians while fighting a foreign force as well as a homegrown insurgency.

3. In the oil business

4. Close friends with very shady characters.

feel free to add your own.
Or we could go with differences:


Liberated 60 million people from murderous regimes.

Doesn't purposefully target civilians.

Doesn't throw people into plastic shredders feet first.

Doesn't let his son torture the olympic athletes or soccer players when they don't win.

No rape rooms.

Doesn't pay the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.

Or we could go with differences:


Liberated 60 million people from murderous regimes.

Doesn't purposefully target civilians.

Doesn't throw people into plastic shredders feet first.

Doesn't let his son torture the olympic athletes or soccer players when they don't win.

No rape rooms.

Doesn't pay the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.


that's not whe image I was going for :D

that's not whe image I was going for :D
Whats wrong, you don't like the truth? :D

Whats wrong, you don't like the truth? :D

sure I do, the good things that the Bush regime have done are nice, and the bad things are ugly and reprehensible. I could point good things out about Saddam too. They do not take away from the bad that he has done.

And liberated 60 million people is still pending, plus debateable as to that being the actual goal.

Doesn't purposfully target civilians is true in most cases sure (although you wonder what they would really do if they wren't going for good PR, you know... like bomb Al Jizeera).

I got another one to add to the alike list

5. The legitimacy of all their elections for presidency were highly questionable

Or we could go with differences:


Liberated 60 million people from murderous regimes.

To be honest, if you're speaking of Iraq and Afghanistan here, then the US can only be said to have attempted to or have started the process to liberate 60 million people from murderous regimes. Neither country is exactly peaceful, nor are the central governments in enough control to ensure stability.


Doesn't purposefully target civilians.

This, in large part, is true.

Doesn't throw people into plastic shredders feet first.

No, but horrible things have happened. Not commonly, and it's not been actively encouraged.


Doesn't let his son torture the olympic athletes or soccer players when they don't win.

Only because America doesn't care about soccer. Kidding! :D

No rape rooms.

No, but the Iraqi governement is accused, by Ayad Allawi, of being just as brutal as it was under Saddam...hence why I think the "Liberated 60 million...," idea to be a bit premature. I may happen, but it's still a work in progress.

Doesn't pay the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.

Though there are reports of US-funded "death squads" being formed (what, is this the 80's again?)

A thread started a few days ago, suggested that the public wasn't getting all the good news from Iraq.

Alleged Iraq Propaganda Probed

What IF the public is getting "invented" news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/01/iraq/main1092397.shtml)? Kinda serious, depending on the severity?

There is also a reference to the same story in the video clip:

New Candor On Iraq (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml)
And what if the public is getting invented news from the terrorists as well? :)

And what if the public is getting invented news from the terrorists as well? :)

Then you fight inventions with truth, not more inventions. Having the same credibility as a "terrorist" is not a good thing.

Sometimes the "pragmatic" and the "right" thing to do are not the same, especially in the long run.

Liberated 60 million people from murderous regimes.


Since when did Iraq and Afghanistan have 60 million people? The total number of both nations combined is closer to 55m. And much of Afghanistan is currently in control of warlords, Taliban and what have you. Not exactly a liberating experience.


Doesn't purposefully target civilians.


Considering actions of ground troops, that's a debatable point.


Doesn't let his son torture the olympic athletes or soccer players when they don't win.

Bush doesn't have any sons. At least not in public knowledge. If you know that he has some, tell the news. It'd be quite a scandal. Unless you're saying his daughters are actually sons.....


No rape rooms.


Abu Ghraib comes pretty close.

And besides, there's a big difference between reporting limited news and manufacturing news that never was. One is called pinpoint vision. The other one is outright lying. Read the op closely.

Or we could go with differences:


Liberated 60 million people from murderous regimes.

Doesn't purposefully target civilians.

Doesn't throw people into plastic shredders feet first.

Doesn't let his son torture the olympic athletes or soccer players when they don't win.

No rape rooms.

Doesn't pay the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.

And the mustache, now grown to beard. Bush definitely Does Not Have a Beard!

Has anyone here actually been to Iraq and seen what's going on over there? I have, so I know what the Iraqi's think of the US as. the majority of the people want us there, and a small group doesn't. it's kind of like your friends liking someone you don't.

Has anyone here actually been to Iraq and seen what's going on over there? I have, so I know what the Iraqi's think of the US as. the majority of the people want us there, and a small group doesn't. it's kind of like your friends liking someone you don't.

Wouldn't it be a majority of people you met rather than the total population? For example, those who live in the hotspots of Iraq might have a markedly different opinion than those living in some rural area thats relatively calm.

The next thing you know, they will be playing music propaganda videos on Iraqi TV praising Bush.

I heard Britney 'I think we should just follow the president' Spears is available.

The Iraqis will probably want to hit her more than one more time.

Shia Death squads in the police and military in Baghdad are killing Sunni political rivals, and other Shias who are rivals, as well as torturing and killing prisoners, some of them for just being Shia.

A Sunni Dictatorship has been replaced by a Shia one.

As one of the prisoners told the BBC, (where he shared his cell with about 30 others who showed signs of torture including being whipped with electrical cables and their wounds having salt rubbed into them by Shia torturers) whilst attempting to be stifled from talking by the police, 'Is this your democracy America? Is this your freedom?'

He's probably dead now.

The US Military can't touch the Shia death squad militias. Why? They have links to the Iraqi government, and the US military can't handle the insurgency as it is.

And perhaps the Shia Militia have a little bit of support from the pentagon in their actions anyway.

The Shia Militia control Sadr City in Baghdad. They control Basra, whilst the insurgents control the Sunni Triangle with intermittent US assaults that lead to the insurgents moving elsewhere in the triangle, in a cat and mouse game where the US military is chasing shadows.

Iraq will probably be no more in ten years time, and will go back to pre-British imperialism there, there being the nation of Basra for the Shias, Baghdad for the Sunnis, and Mosul/Kurdistan for the Kurds.

Baghdad may be the epicentre of a Shia and Sunni tussle.

Nice legacy to leave behind, Bush.

Blood is on your hands.

As a result of this, Bush will have killed more Iraqis than Saddam for his war and it's ramifications.

Wouldn't it be a majority of people you met rather than the total population? For example, those who live in the hotspots of Iraq might have a markedly different opinion than those living in some rural area thats relatively calm.

I was pretty much all over the country, and the MAJORITY of the people I came face to face with (and that was A LOT) wanted us there. It's easy to say that because I did not met every single person there, that I can't say that I know for a fact that 51% of the total population enjoys and welcomes US soldiers around, but that argument usually comes from some one who believes a CNN Gallup pole that questions 1,500 people about something shows that the results speak for the entire nation.

Catch my drift?

...the MAJORITY of the people I came face to face with (and that was A LOT) wanted us there...
Considering the alternatives that shouldn't be much of a compliment to you.
More vital is the question whether those Iraqis felt that the US were doing a good job improving their lifes after the war, whether the US dealt with infrastructure and security issues properly, and whether the Iraqis thought that you could do more.

Considering the alternatives that shouldn't be much of a compliment to you.


Please tell me you're not serious.

Please tell me you're not serious.
What?
If the US Troops weren't there, the alternatives would be a Sharia Government, Civil War, or still Saddam.

You can't honestly tell me that you're proud of comparing favourably to those. That should go without saying.

What?
If the US Troops weren't there, the alternatives would be a Sharia Government, Civil War, or still Saddam.

You can't honestly tell me that you're proud of comparing favourably to those. That should go without saying.

I misread that incorrectly. Plus I just woke up. I was under the impression that the next time I went over there, i should ask them about the infrastructure issues and what all when the fact is... most of them.. don't care.

Saddam's regime was a small government supressing the masses. Religion played a HUGE favor in this as well, so please, do tell me how vast majority of opressed religious group A isn't going to give a rat's hairy hoondanger about the infastructure as long as they are no longer being downtrodden

Please tell me you're not serious.
Please tell me you aren't.

That said, the only people I know from Iraq (and they aren't there presently), are thrillied about the invasion & occupation. But they're Kurdish, so they would be.

I misread that incorrectly. Plus I just woke up. I was under the impression that the next time I went over there, i should ask them about the infrastructure issues and what all when the fact is... most of them.. don't care.
I'm sure they do care whether they have running water and electricity.

Saddam's regime was a small government supressing the masses.
As all regimes are. But Saddam's certainly was one of the less pleasant ones.
Still better than the DPRK though.

Religion played a HUGE favor in this as well, so please, do tell me how vast majority of opressed religious group A isn't going to give a rat's hairy hoondanger about the infastructure as long as they are no longer being downtrodden.
Despite what some people might say, people's ethnic and religious differences become secondary when they can't cook their dinner or drink clean water without having to walk a few km's.

And besides, if you're now talking about religious oppression - Saddam was secular, there was to be no organised religion that could challenge him. But because he came from the Sunni part of the country, his ruling party was Sunni and that didn't please the Shia.
And now, with democracy, chances are we simply reversed the roles - now the Sunnis will be oppressed, and the Shia majority (backed by Iran) will take over.

I find it comical that people here are making believe that the things they're saying are "fact" when they know absolutely nothing about what's going on other than the tripe they're fed by the "unbiased" **snicker** journalism of the major free-world networks.

I swear, any "good news" you hear (if any) is met with dismissive silence, but any "bad news" and you people have orgasms!

You scream until you're blue in the face, "Bush lied, people died"... But whenever I ask these people, "Oh? What did he say, SPECIFICALLY, that was a lie?" and all I get is another slack-jawed, tree-hugging, veggie-burger-eating liberal staring at me with the old "deer in the headlights" 1000 yard stare. All they ever manage to stammer out is "MWDs!" or "He wanted the oil!" or he said Iraq was an "Imminent threat"... Well, the only way he could "lie" about WMDs is if he KNEW FOR A FACT that they didn't exist, and 10% of the intelligence about WMDs came from our allies, namely England, France, Italy, Russia, and other Middle Eastern countries. The other 90% was inherited from THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S INVESTIGATIONS INTO IRAQ'S ACTIVITIES! As far as "He wanted the oil" goes... well, have you looked at the price at the pumps recently, morons? Yep, we're sure getting a lot of free oil from this war! (and don't get me started about the totally corrupt U.N.'s "oil for food" program, I'll save that for another smackdown) About the "Imminent threat"... well, Bush never said that about Iraq, but a prominent DEMOCRAT Did! and let's not forget that the VAST majority of the democratic congressmen voted *FOR* the initial attack on Iraq. The U.S. couldn't attack without their overwhelming support!

Sheesh, people, if you can't prove what you're spouting, keep your cake-hole shut!

(oh, and by the way, the war wasn't started by the U.S. running into Iraq to find massive stockpiles of ICBMs, it was started by Iraq's total disregard of the 27 UN resolutions, the attack (on 46 different occasions) against UN sanctioned, international "peacekeeping" fighter patrols by both SAM and Iraqi fighter craft over U.N sanctioned "No Fly" zones, and the PROVEN crimes against humanity that the Saddam regime was committing. (man, you'll be the first people to cry and protest about *one* student being run over by a tank in China, but let tens of thousands of innocents be slaughtered by a hitler-like dictator, and you fawn over him like he's the poor, martyred victim) )

Man, some of you people make me sick...


edit And as far as the propaganda goes, if it does exist, it's a valid tool used during EVERY war throughout history. (Propaganda, in and of itself, doesn't mean that the information is untrue, it may be information that's being kept from the masses... Hmmm... sounds like ABC news, doesn't it?)

I find it comical that people here are making believe that the things they're saying are "fact" when they know absolutely nothing about what's going on other than the tripe they're fed by the "unbiased" **snicker** journalism of the major free-world networks.

I swear, any "good news" you hear (if any) is met with dismissive silence, but any "bad news" and you people have orgasms!

You scream until you're blue in the face, "Bush lied, people died"... But whenever I ask these people, "Oh? What did he say, SPECIFICALLY, that was a lie?" and all I get is another slack-jawed, tree-hugging, veggie-burger-eating liberal staring at me with the old "deer in the headlights" 1000 yard stare. All they ever manage to stammer out is "MWDs!" or "He wanted the oil!" or he said Iraq was an "Imminent threat"... Well, the only way he could "lie" about WMDs is if he KNEW FOR A FACT that they didn't exist, and 10% of the intelligence about WMDs came from our allies, namely England, France, Italy, Russia, and other Middle Eastern countries. The other 90% was inherited from THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S INVESTIGATIONS INTO IRAQ'S ACTIVITIES! As far as "He wanted the oil" goes... well, have you looked at the price at the pumps recently, morons? Yep, we're sure getting a lot of free oil from this war! (and don't get me started about the totally corrupt U.N.'s "oil for food" program, I'll save that for another smackdown) About the "Imminent threat"... well, Bush never said that about Iraq, but a prominent DEMOCRAT Did! and let's not forget that the VAST majority of the democratic congressmen voted *FOR* the initial attack on Iraq. The U.S. couldn't attack without their overwhelming support!

Sheesh, people, if you can't prove what you're spouting, keep your cake-hole shut!

(oh, and by the way, the war wasn't started by the U.S. running into Iraq to find massive stockpiles of ICBMs, it was started by Iraq's total disregard of the 27 UN resolutions, the attack (on 46 different occasions) against UN sanctioned, international "peacekeeping" fighter patrols by both SAM and Iraqi fighter craft over U.N sanctioned "No Fly" zones, and the PROVEN crimes against humanity that the Saddam regime was committing. (man, you'll be the first people to cry and protest about *one* student being run over by a tank in China, but let tens of thousands of innocents be slaughtered by a hitler-like dictator, and you fawn over him like he's the poor, martyred victim) )

Man, some of you people make me sick...
I presume this new nation of yours is a "puppet nation"? Calling people "morons" is not a good start at NS, IF indeed this is a NEW NS nation, which I severely doubt.

Your facts are skewed to say the least, especially regarding the reason for invasion and your fabrication about "U.N sanctioned "No Fly" zones". Try reading UN Resolution 1441.

And no one is "fawning" over Saddam. Most of the outrage here is about an illegal US invasion of Iraq and the needless deaths of "tens of thousands of innocents".

Many people (not staring into headlights like deer) do believe that one of the long term ambitions of the Iraq war is having access to Iraq's oil. The current price at the pump has nothing to do with the long term goal.

As far as Bush administration and the "imminent threat" quote, you are not paying attention?

Here is a good article to read:

In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970)

It is a compilation of Bush administration quotes and the word "threat" is used about 50 times.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice?

if you can't prove what you're spouting, keep your cake-hole shut!

Despite what some people might say, people's ethnic and religious differences become secondary when they can't cook their dinner or drink clean water without having to walk a few km's.
Then those differences approach critical points when they are given a democratic voice.

Has anyone here actually been to Iraq and seen what's going on over there? I have, so I know what the Iraqi's think of the US as. the majority of the people want us there, and a small group doesn't. it's kind of like your friends liking someone you don't.
The majority of Iraqis want the US out despite the fact that they know that they will be worse off.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

The majority of Iraqis want the US out despite the fact that they know that they will be worse off.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm

This one breaks down about half and half - 40% of Iraqis polled want the Coalition Forces to leave immediately, and 45% want the Coalition Forces to stay until an Iraqi government is electediv.iii When looking at this statistic, keep in mind that the population of Iraq is 30% Sunni, and many Sunnis benefited from Saddam's regime.

When the question is poised with competing issues in order of importance, only 6.2% of Iraqis polled list "departure of coalition forces" as their most pressing issue.

Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies poll D9 of Hillah, Diwaniah, Mosul, Basrah, Baghdad and Baquba, May 2004 (about the same time as your Gallup poll).

You might also ask "why" some Iraqis want us to leave.

I would imagine that some Kurds want us to leave, so they can finish driving out the Sunnis who were placed there by Saddam and then possibly form a separate Kurdish state.

The Shiites probably would like to get on with taking over the Sunni area and lording it over them - they have not only the means, but the will to do so, with the help of Iran.

The Sunnis have a pipe dream of restoring themselves to power - highly unlikely.

A thread started a few days ago, suggested that the public wasn't getting all the good news from Iraq.

Alleged Iraq Propaganda Probed

What IF the public is getting "invented" news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/01/iraq/main1092397.shtml)? Kinda serious, depending on the severity?

There is also a reference to the same story in the video clip:

New Candor On Iraq (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml)

i've always thought that the networks were concentrating on the negatives --minimizing the positives -- and this does nothing to change that impression.

if anything, they're going to now bias their Iraq stories even more toward the anti-American Americans who are for leaving the iraqis to rot.

(do you like the last sentence? hehe)

(do you like the last sentence? hehe)
Yes. :D

Your facts are skewed to say the least, especially regarding the reason for invasion and your fabrication about "U.N sanctioned "No Fly" zones". Try reading UN Resolution 1441.

And no one is "fawning" over Saddam. Most of the outrage here is about an illegal US invasion of Iraq and the needless deaths of "tens of thousands of innocents".

Many people (not staring into headlights like deer) do believe that one of the long term ambitions of the Iraq war is having access to Iraq's oil. The current price at the pump has nothing to do with the long term goal.

As far as Bush administration and the "imminent threat" quote, you are not paying attention?

Here is a good article to read:

In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970)

It is a compilation of Bush administration quotes and the word "threat" is used about 50 times.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice?


Well, let's take this in order, shall we?

OK, you "tried" to read Resolution 1441. Have you read any subsequent resolutions? The no fly zones were fabrications on my part? They never existed? Are you trying to tell me that coalition planes were never fired upon in the "supposedly, well publicised by the American news media during the Clinton Adminstration fictional" No-Fly" zones? And I suppose you never bothered to browse any resolutions after 1441? Yeah, I thought not... The liberals don't like the facts coming out, only the half-truths...

So... Nobody "fawned" over Saddam, huh? Calling it an outrage when a "major world leader" *snicker* had a photograph of him taken, covertly, and exposed to the media, covertly, in his underwear, and all the news media complimenting his "big package", much in the same way the news media clamoured and drooled over the choreographed pictures of the former president Clinton, and her husband Bill, dancing on a moonlit beach, sans music, mind you... saying how much the lovely couple was in love... (hard to believe, since the Monica story hit the news 3 weeks before, but wasn't reported until 1 week before the choreographed dancing) Yes, and who can forget the liberal whiners gnashing of teeth and beating of breast when Saddam was pulled out of his widly publicised "Spider Hole" (who on earth didn't know that phrase 3 days after his capture?) Yes, Poor dirty, unshaven, unkempt Saddam *snif* *sob* Poor l'il guy!

And you're right, Since you made such an empassioned defense of him, and produced overwhelming evidence that his regime was nothing but altruistic, he never killed tens of thousands of people! How could I have been so blind? I must have been watching ABC News or something to get that idea stuck in my head! Silly me! It's us dirty, evil americans who's killing all the innocents! With me having spent 22 years in the Army and having done duty in both Gulf wars, I never made the connection! It was *ME* killing tens of thousands! Yes, I was running rampant down streets, not content to kill the poor terrorists, I wanted the fresh, young flesh of the children in schoolyards, the invalids in hospitals and the unsuspecting, evil muslims praying in Mosques and the infedels who darken the hotels!

So you "believe" the long term goal is, what did you say, Iraqi oil? *Believe*? You mean you "presume"? You "think"? You "fantasize"? Where's the facts, buddy boy? Where are the quotes from prominent Government officials that state this "Belief" of yours? Is it the same kind of "Belief" that Christians have in Jesus? The same "Belief" that UFOlogists have in extraterrestial aliens? Belief is a very ambiguous word, my friend, come back when you have something more concrete.

And don't bring up the price at the pump again, bucko... Kerry was beating on Bush during the last election, saying that bush was in bed with the Saudis pandering for lower oil prices. Yep... the lies keep coming... too bad for you the lies were not from the Bush administration, huh?

And that link you posted... nowhere in there does it quote President Bush as saying "Iraq is an immenent threat"... but even someone as thick as you could understand that the regime in Iraq, with the training of terrorists, the financial backing to Al Queda, the promises to pay the families of homicide bombers, WAS a threat to, not only the US, but to all western-aligned nations. (just ask the people in Madrid, in the Philippines, in India, in Pakistan, in... you get the idea..) (or maybe you don't?)

And about my own advice? I stand by it... proudly.

Lollerskaters, your argument is filled with assumptions that are not even related to Canuck's post. Example: Your attempt at somehow linking Canuck's post to defending Saddam Hussein. He didn't. Anyone with reading comprehension would be able to tell. I highly suspect that you are a puppet intent on causing grief.

I apologize for hijacking... I was just defending myself and my brethren.

It's just that the liberal extremists get me a little uppity...

I'll sign off for a while ;)

If the government is planting news reports in the media, then they have a strange agenda with the news being gloomy. However, I did hear that a PR firm under contract by the military is planting reports in the Iraqi media. Whether they were authorized by a field commander or a Pentagon insider is uncertain, but it is ruffling the most feathers in the White House, and understandibly so.

However, I did hear that a PR firm under contract by the military is planting reports in the Iraqi media. Whether they were authorized by a field commander or a Pentagon insider is uncertain, but it is ruffling the most feathers in the White House, and understandibly so.
You wouldn't think that a "field commander" would be able to pony up $6 Million for favourable news reports (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10272171/)?

One of the companies involved — the Washington-based Lincoln Group — has at least two contracts with the military to provide media and public relations services. One contract, for $6 million, was for public relations and advertising work in Iraq and involved planting favorable stories in the Iraqi media, Defense Department records show.

No harm done? Not according to this Senator:

“A free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media,” said the committee chairman, Sen. John Warner, R-Va."

At the same time this pro propaganda is rolling out, the US engages in censorship of other Iraqi news?

Censorship (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000256.php)

Are the stories contained in the above link true? I really don't know. Are the stories false? Again I don't know. If they are true, it doesn't help the US image. If they are false, they need to be refuted by independent sources.

Are other US media outlets censoring their own reports?

Survey: U.S. media censors Iraq reporting (http://www.spacewar.com/upi/2005/WWN-UPI-20050405-13061900-bc-iraq-media-feature.html)

Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship (http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm)

Will we ever know the "true" stories?