[NeedKarma]

LiveLeak.com - How to make an Angry American

Have a watch. I think it's great.

[CaptainRich]

Great for what? It's classic one-sided propaganda. Where's the focus on the checks Hussein's government gave to suicide bombers and their families? Where's the focus on the hundres of thousands his puppets gasses and murdered? Where's the focus showing the super-gun they tried to create? Project Babylon Supergun / PC-2 - Iraq Special Weapons We know there were WMD's. We gave some of those to them. But they were different people then. If you give a child something and he does wrong with it, do you not punish him and try to correct your own wrong? Any complicity? Any responsibility?
Would in-action be better? Should anyone let what was going on when this whole thing started just continue, unabated? Where would this world be now...
I have my opinion. I don't think I'm alone.

[NeedKarma]

Thanks for your comments Captain. I'll go with the words straight from the horses' mouthes as shown on the video. None of them got punish or seem to have any accountability for their actions and words. That's what the video shows.

[CaptainRich]

I'm not going to make excuses for the confusion. Global diplomacy and international relations can be described as being very fluid. Every nation should be asking itself, "How do you like me now?" That doesn't happen.
Do you not agree there were WMD's at some point? If not, why?
And if they were there, where'd they go?

[ETWolverine]

So... your idea for how to make an angry American is to string together a bunch of clips taken out of context, without airing any of the responses of administration to the questions posed. Then add a bunch of clips of people cursing out the administration. Throw in a few clips of ignorant celebrities spouting off about topics they have no information about. Add some rhetorric about the first Gulf War (which no reasonable person disagress that we had reason to be involved with), and add some pictures of people flipping the bird at the White House.

Yeah, that would make an angry American, all right. No disagreement here.

As to whether that would constitute a cohesive and cogent argument against the war, that's a different question. I doubt it, but hey, that's open to interpretation. It certainly doesn't constitute FACTUAL information.

You remember "FACTS", don't you? Those are those little things that get in the way of rhetorric and bull$h!t. You know... like the FACT that we did find WMDs in Iraq including 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium, shells filled with sarin and mustard, etc. The FACT that we did find evidence of Saddam meeting with al Qaeda leaders, sheltering international terrorists and terrorist groups, paying money to terrorists' families, and building terrorist training camps. The FACT that Saddam violated the ceasefire agreement he signed in 1991. The FACT that Saddam violated numerous UN resolutions and defied UN WMD inspectors. The FACT that Saddam violated human rights of his own people. The FACT that Saddam used WMDs on his own people as well as on foreign nationals.

These FACTS are completely ignored in the video you linked.

So, by your own evidence, the best way to make an angry American is to throw out a bunch of rhetorrical BS to the public and completely ignore facts and history. I agree, that is how you make an angry American.

Now... can you figure out how to find a video that presents the facts?

Elliot

[tomder55]

I cannot view the video on the computer I am using now but I assume by the comments it is about some of our flawed policies regarding the M.E. and Iraq in the past I concede that point and say we have moved on since then . I blame much of it as cold war politics and too much "realism" .

The reality of the world is that alliances shift . We fought wars at one time against England ,Germany ,Japan and now all those countries we depend upon for mutual support and protection . We once armed mujahadin and now we want them dead or alive.

[speechlesstx]

Yep, I think you're right. That should make any rational, thinking American angry - at people like mrgrieves9876 that think it's cute to persuade people with such propagandistic nonsense. And here I thought the left expected people to think for themselves. But then, I understand how damaging that would be to their agenda.

[NeedKarma]

And here I thought the left expected people to think for themselves. But then, I understand how damaging that would be to their agenda.

a) what information would 'free-thinkers' use to make their own decisions?
b) what is the agenda of the 'left'?

[speechlesstx]

a) what information would 'free-thinkers' use to make their own decisions?

For starters, how about the facts of both the reasons for going to war with Iraq, and the truth about the brutality of Saddam Hussein and his crimes against humanity?

b) what is the agenda of the 'left'?

Where would you like me to start? I don't have time to go into detail, but it begins with an intolerance of any idea, policy or speech that conflicts with the secular progressive/liberal ideology. That is the reason for hate speech laws, speech codes and diversity and tolerance/sensitivity policies on college campuses, and student fee restrictions that are all unfairly enforced in favor of decidedly non-conservative groups and individuals.

[saraispiel19]

Umm you tαke αwαy his cheeseburger?

[NeedKarma]

Speech,
You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people.

Your definition of leftish agenda seems more geared to slam people who are not like you. That's intolerance isn't it? I really don't care because I'm a moderate and don't spend all day defending the right and attacking the left on internet discussion boards.

[speechlesstx]

Speech,
You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people.

On that you'd have to be more specific than a patchwork video. I guess I'm one of the few who NEVER believed the only reason we went to Iraq was WMD's and can't recall the administration blaming Hussein for 9/11. I can however recall all of the other reasons we went, and I know that all Hussein had to do was show he had complied with 12 years of resolutions to avoid his fate. He failed to so.

Your definition of leftish agenda seems more geared to slam people who are not like you. That's intolerance isn't it? I really don't care because I'm a moderate and don't spend all day defending the right and attacking the left on internet discussion boards.

Your 'assumption' is incorrect. If I had used harsh words of criticism you might have a case, but I reasonably stated my opinion and furnished links to some of the supporting facts. I would never want everyone to "be like me," but I'll admit I am very intolerant of hypocrites preaching tolerance. :D

[ETWolverine]

Speech,
You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people.

Wrong, Karma. The video only shows what it wants you to see. It doesn't show what ELSE was said that they left out. I happen to have the full transcripts of both Bush's State of the Union Address where he outlines why Saddam was a risk, and his speech before the UN where he lays out why Saddam was a risk. I also have White House documents that were made public as background papers to Bush's UN speech. NONE of that is discussed in the video. They ONLY talk about WMDs in the video. They don't talk about what else Bush said at all. They cherry-picked what they wanted you to hear, and you fell for it.

[quote}Your definition of leftish agenda seems more geared to slam people who are not like you. That's intolerance isn't it? I really don't care because I'm a moderate and don't spend all day defending the right and attacking the left on internet discussion boards.[/QUOTE]

No. It is a realistic assessment of the facts as both Speech and I see them, with statements by the leaders of the left to back up those assertions.

And there is nothing wrong with intolerance per se. That is the thing you keep missing. Tolerance of something that is wrong means that it will continue. Tolerance of evil means that evil will continue. Tolerance of that which is bad means that the bad thing will continue. By being intolerant of that which is wrong, bad, and evil, we have the chance to grow. It is only when the intolerance is based on something other than values (like skin color, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation) takes place that it becomes evil. Intolerance of things that we SHOULD be intolerant of is a GOOD thing.

I believe that certain ideas put forth by liberalism are wong and bad for America. I have no interest in tolerating those things. I will always tolerate the people who put those ideas forth, but I will do my best to make sure that those ideas do not become the reality. To do anything less is aquiesence to evil.

I don't dislike you because you and I disagree. But I will argue with you when I think you are wrong and point out where you are wrong. That's how growth takes place. It is intolerance of that which is wrong, without being intolerant of the person who puts it forth. And that is a good thing.

Descrimination between black and white is wrong. Desrimination between wrong and right or good and evil is not. In fact, it is incumbent on all of us to descriminate between good and evil... part of our responsibility to society.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

I believe that certain ideas put forth by liberalism are wong and bad for America. I have no interest in tolerating those things. I will always tolerate the people who put those ideas forth, but I will do my best to make sure that those ideas do not become the reality. To do anything less is aquiesence to evil.

That's exactly the way I feel about ultra-conservatism. However I've never called others evil, except maybe for the violent white supremacists. Let's keep fighting the good fight! :)

But back on track - I see absolutely nothing wrong with citizens voicing their displeasure with the administration, any administration.

[ETWolverine]

That's exactly the way I feel about ultra-conservatism. However I've never called others evil, except maybe for the violent white supremacists. Let's keep fighting the good fight! :)

Neither did I. I think the ideas of mainstream liberalism are wrong, not evil.

But back on track - I see absolutely nothing wrong with citizens voicing their displeasure with the administration, any administration.

Neither do I. But you represented that video as "the truth", when in fact it is only part of the truth, and deliberately leaves off important information necessary to make an informed decision. You portrayed the clips in the video as "straight from the horses' mouthes" but neglected to point out that the rest of what came out of the horses' mouths was left off. I have no problem with the opinions put forth in the video. What I have a problem with is any claim that it is "The Truth" without any posibility of disagreement based on other sources, or even the rest of the SAME sources. You did that in your post to CaptainRich. You did it again in your post to Speech when you said "You may post all the links you want about documents that talk about all other reasons the US went to war but that video shows what the american people were told, then recanted by the same people." You don't know what those people may have said or recanted because we haven't seen all of what they said. We've only seen what the editor of this video showed us. You only have part of the information from this video, and a highly biased part as well. Therefore, this video does not represent "The Truth" but rather a only partial truth, presented with a specific slant to create a specific reaction.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Of course it's 'propaganda', in the same same way that that Fox News is propaganda. I think the regular Joe can figure that out. It's cool to see the words spoken by the main protagonists and their their trip ups afterwards though.

My post to Captain Rich stated that they lied and didn't get punished for it. The video shows the discrepancies of what they said. I don't a crap about the mustard gas or long gun, that's not what it's about. It's about the admin tripping over themselves. I stand by that.

[ETWolverine]

Of course it's 'propaganda', in the same same way that that Fox News is propaganda.

Not really. Fox News puts on both conservatives AND liberals. It's not the "Sean Hannity Show" it's "Hannity and Colmes". Both views are aired.

I think the regular Joe can figure that out.

I beg to differ. Most people are too lazy to find out the truth for themselves. That's why they watch TV and rely on TV news for their information ather than doing the research yourself. Even you made that mistake yesterday when we were talking about the budget. The information is out there, but it takes effort to find it and most people are just too lazy to go through budget reports, political speeches, historical background papers, political analyses, etc. I do it because I'm a fanatic. Tom and Speech do an excellent job of research too. Most people, in my experience, do not.

It's cool to see the words spoken by the main protagonists and their their trip ups afterwards though.

I agree. But it isn't the whole story. Unless you know the context and are allowed to hear the rest of the soundbyte, you are only getting half the information.

My post to Captain Rich stated that they lied and didn't get punished for it.

And the point of Cap's post (and mine) is that they didn't lie. Everything they said was based on information coroborated by multiple sources, and much of it turned out to be 100% true, including the allegations of WMDs. That's the entire point of the video, and it proves that the allegations of the video were wrong.

The video shows the discrepancies of what they said. I don't a crap about the mustard gas or long gun, that's not what it's about. It's about the admin tripping over themselves. I stand by that.

Ummm, Karma? You did know that sarin gas and mustard gas are WMDs, didn't you? And therefore, if the video is arguing that Bush went to war based on WMDs, wouldn't the existence of WMDs be relevant to the conversation? BTW, the long-gun also falls under the category of WMDs as well as falling under the category of illegal long-range weapons that Saddam was not allowed to have under the 1991 cease-fire. These facts are directly relevant to what Bush and company said. And if those facts are true, then the admin didn't really trip over themselves, did they.

And was the point of the video to sho "the discrepancies of what they said"? Or was it to allege that Bush and company lied about WMDs and they should be impeached. Seems to me that the latter is more true. This video wasn't trying to show "discrepancies" it was trying to prove a pattern of criminal activity. And since the information that Cap and Tom and Speech and I have provided proves that Bush and Co. were right on the mark, then it would mean that the allegations of the video were incorrect... or at the very least, not as open-and-shut as they would have you believe.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Oh yes they lied. That's where you and I will always differ. Millions of americans agree with me. I don't have the resources that Murdoch has for Fox News so I do my bit for the equalizer. :)

Your part is to keep bumping this thread up. :D

Did we not watch the same video?? Where, at 0:39, Rumsfeld says they did not find WMDS??

[speechlesstx]

Of course it's 'propaganda', in the same same way that that Fox News is propaganda. I think the regular Joe can figure that out. It's cool to see the words spoken by the main protagonists and their their trip ups afterwards though.

OK, I don't get the Fox News is propaganda bit, and I would wager that most people who slam Fox News never watch Fox News. Whether they are "fair and balanced" or not is up to you to decide, but from my observations Fox News consistently furnishes both sides of a debate, despite a conservative slant to the news. What is wrong with one of the major news channels leaning to the right as opposed to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, HNN and MSNBC and their clear liberal bent? Here's some interesting polling data just released to support my point:

By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias.

Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin.

There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias—Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias.

That's the overall view, now get this:

Not surprisingly, there are huge partisan and ideological differences in the data. For example, among self-identified liberals, all of the media outlets are believed to have some net bias in favor of conservatives. However, 50% of liberals say that NPR is unbiased. Forty-three percent (43%) say the same about CNN. As for the major television networks, 49% of liberals believe they have a conservative bias. Just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Conservatives throughout the nation see things entirely differently. Sixty-two percent (62%) see a liberal bias at the major broadcast networks and 55% say the same about CNN. Forty-five percent (45%) of conservatives see Fox as unbiased and the rest are evenly divided. Eighteen percent (18%) of conservatives see Fox News as having a liberal bias while 21% say the opposite.

Younger adults are less likely than their elders to see a liberal bias across all of the media outlets.

On a partisan basis, Democrats see the major television networks and Fox as biased in favor of conservatives. Solid pluralities of Democrats believe CNN and NPR deliver news without bias. Those Democrats who see bias at CNN and NPR are fairly evenly divided, but are a bit more likely to detect conservative bias.

Republicans see a strong liberal bias on all the outlets except Fox. Forty-nine percent (49%) of the GOP faithful see Fox as fair and balanced.

Those not affiliated with either major party tend to see a liberal bias everywhere except Fox. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliateds see a liberal bias at the major television networks while only 19% see a conservative bias.

Did you get that NK, Americans overall - including those with no party affiliation - see a liberal bias in all the television news outlets but Fox, yet Democrats/liberals don't think they're liberal enough. What's astonishing is "just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC."

From what little interaction I've had with you it seems beneath you to throw out lines like "Of course it's 'propaganda', in the same same way that that Fox News is propoganda". As Rasmussen points out, "voters tended to select news sources based upon their political preferences," and there's nothing wrong with that. However, it is wrong to single out the conservative channel as offering "propaganda" while the rest are actively engaged in broadcasting their liberal bias.

My post to Captain Rich stated that they lied and didn't get punished for it. The video shows the discrepancies of what they said. I don't a crap about the mustard gas or long gun, that's not what it's about. It's about the admin tripping over themselves. I stand by that.

It's hard to stay on your feet when you have all those liberal major news outlets, the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Hollywood and virtually every Democrat in office doing their damnedest to trip you up without regard to consequences - or the truth.

[NeedKarma]

I'm not reading all that - I stopped at your saying that Fox News is not propaganda. That's just laughable.