"Amid differences, a point of accord for Obama, Cheney" by Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff | May 22, 2009
WASHINGTON - The public accepted the Bush-Cheney viewpoint until evidence from Iraq suggested that the administration, in its determination to stay on the offense, had lost touch with common sense.
No, it was the DAMNABLE LIES!!!!
But Americans are good at forgetting failures, and the hard-line position on national security, like Dick Cheney himself, is never completely out of the picture.
Neither is the Zionist grip over this government either.
Related: A Legend in His Own Mind
As for forgetting things, to hell with that!
WE WANT WAR CRIMES TRIALS and PUBLIC EXECUTIONS for TREASON!!!!!
Five years after the United States extricated itself from Vietnam, a decades-long entanglement that caused endless pain and anguish, Ronald Reagan won the presidency on a campaign that Vietnam was "a noble cause" and that the nation had gone weak....
Another war started over lies. Where do I start?
I see nothing noble about dropping chemicals on people and murdering millions.
It all seems so oddly familiar:
"In researching the Bush administration’s manipulation of public perceptions, I came across an interesting summary of the State Department’s Philip Zelikow, who was Executive Director on the 9-11 Commission, that greatest of all charades. According to Wikipedia:
"Prof. Zelikow’s area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, 'public myths’ or 'public presumptions’ which he defines as 'beliefs (1) thought to be true ( although not necessarily known with certainty) and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.’ In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called 'searing’ or 'molding’ events (that) take on transcendent’ importance and therefore retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene….He has noted that 'a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make the connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all." ("Thinking about Political History" Miller center Report, winter 1999, p 5-7)
Isn’t that the same as saying there is neither history nor truth; that what is really important is the manipulation of epochal events so they serve the interests of society’s managers? Thus, it follows that if the government can create their own "galvanizing events", then they can write history any way they choose.
If that’s the case, then perhaps the entire war on terror is cut from whole cloth; a garish public relations maneuver devoid of meaning."
Also see: The Ideological Media
