We gotta remember what this is all about really... Joe Wilson was supposed to do the investigation into Niger's supposed uranium sales to Saddam, this was done at the request of the vice president's office. Wilson told the truth that the whole idea was a sham designed to build up reasons to invade the helpless Iraqis. When Wilson failed, the Neo-cons outed his wife as punishment for disobeying. After that, Cheney traveled repeatedly to the CIA during 2002. More than any other vice-president has EVER, basically to muscle those leftover after Plamegate to tow the line that Iraq had WMDs..All a lie, all a sham and Wilson is a patriot for telling the truth. If only the troops had such courage, to stand up agains this lie, this sham of a war that they are fighting. Only then could America have a restored honor, only then would the uniform mean something again.
2006-06-16 11:31:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
IT"S ALL IN THE BUSH DOCTRINE:
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in sloans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
~ Adolph Hitler "Mein Kampf - War Propaganda"
State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part I
"There are those who always say that it cannot happen here. That was also what many were saying in Germany in the 1930s. The Nazi’s crimes were the official legal acts and policies of modern Germany—an educated, civilized Western European nation. Much like the U.S. of today, it was a country renowned throughout the world for its industrial and cultural achievements. In fact, Berlin was the epitome of the modern city. Freedom in everything seemed to be the new clarion call in Germany. However, within a short time, Germany became part and parcel to some of the most barbaric acts ever perpetrated by a people."
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=318
State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part II
It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
— Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering, testimony at Nuremberg
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=319
Hitler's Enabling Act
http://www.govsux.com/enable.htm
2006-06-16 18:27:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by parshooter 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why the worry about Karl Rove? He's an advisor to a lame-duck president. It's not like he sleeps with the nuclear switch in under his pillow, by virtue of his position.
2006-06-16 18:29:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by stevis78 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
because there was no crime committed...She was not an undercover agent, she was outed 9 years prior to the whole Joe Wilson thing her name was on a list given to Russia of U.S. covert agents working undercover.anyway...and she was also outed in her husbands speech 3 months prior to the time Karl Rove was accused of leaking her name...and she was also outed in her husbands book which came out about the same time...no crime...
As for the Vice president- he did ask that someone be sent to Niger, but he did not ask for Joe to be sent...Joe's wife suggested that he go.
Joe's report said that there were people in Niger looking to buy yellow cake, but they did not succeed.
Joe's report supported what the President was saying at that time that people were looking to buy yellow-cake.
the administration did not have any reason to try to go after him.
The papers where making a big fuss saying that no one had purchased the yellow-cake...but this is just a play on words...they were still looking just not successful. The public gets so wrapped up into fake conspiracy theories.......
2006-06-16 18:33:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by DS_ORCHID 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure, and let's indict the Special Prosecutor! And the Sultan of Brunai for not more closely monitoring Michael Jackson and for allowing him into that oily state in the first place! And let's indict Al Gore for making a movie which one is to understand is much better than his first book on the Environment! And let's indict John Adamns for not going along to better get along! And let's indict Benjamin Franklin for lewd and lascivious conduct! And let's indict Frank Robinson and Brittany Spears and Katey Couric for crying on the air! And let's indict me for going on and on and on and on and on!
2006-06-16 18:31:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by rayhanks2260 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Have you seen what he did when he got his bump up in the administration setting national policy? Keep Rove in power insure a democratic victory.
2006-06-16 18:27:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He "dodged" indictment because he was never guilty to begin with.
2006-06-16 18:26:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by nighthawk_842003 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Seems to balance out Cynthia Mckinney punching a police officer and getting away with it.
2006-06-16 21:27:15
·
answer #8
·
answered by rmoss9686 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is not enough evidence......yet.
or
He cut a deal.
"We don't anticpate....to bring charges" there is alot being said there.
We have found no evidence or he was not involved are complete and diffrent things.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time..
does that mean repugs arent people???
2006-06-16 18:29:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by nefariousx 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
And your point?
Clinton dodged impeachment.
What the hell?
2006-06-16 18:26:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋